Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)

The number of voices raising concerns about the Government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill is rapidly growing. This is especially apparent now that Parliament’s select committee is listening to submissions from the public to evaluate the proposed legislation.

Twenty-seven thousand submissions have been made to Parliament about the bill. This is one of the highest numbers ever submitted about legislation, which reflects how community anger is growing against the controversial bill.

Background to the bill

The Government’s Fast-Track Bill has been created to help speed up and streamline the ability to build things in New Zealand. Everything from dams to roads to housing developments are expected to be put through this new mechanism which essentially bypasses New Zealand’s relatively slow and challenging resource consenting processes.

Most controversially, the new mechanism empowers three ministers to make the final decisions on infrastructure proposals. Those ministers merely have to be convinced that an application contains “significant regional or national benefits”. In agreeing to a project, the ministers can override the expert panel assisting them as well as existing environmental laws.

I’ve already written about the processes in these three columns:

1. The Government’s new fast-track invitation to corruption
2. Time for “Fast-Track Watch”
3. The Case for the Government’s Fast Track Bill

The Select Committee process

The Government introduced the Fast Track Approvals Bill into Parliament for its first reading in March. It now has to be examined by a select committee, which will report back on its recommendations on September 7.

The bill is currently being considered by the Environmental Select Committee, which has allocated six weeks to consider public submissions and presentations. However, due to the extremely large number of submissions, the select committee has had to cut back on hearing from everyone.

Of the 27,000 submitters, about 2900 have requested to appear before the select committee to discuss their feedback on the bill. Given these vast numbers, a decision has been made to restrict oral submissions to just 1100. The Committee has decided to allow appearances from 550 organisations who want to speak to the committee. They will get ten minutes each.

Regarding the individuals, 2,350 submitters have requested to be heard at the hearings, but only 550 appointments will be made. To decide who gets these, the committee has opted for a ballot to be used as a mechanism for random selection. Some higher-profile individuals, such as former MPs, will be automatically selected. All individuals are being allocated five minutes each.

The opposition parties have opposed curtailing the process, saying that the hearing schedule should be extended to accommodate all the requests.

Green MP Lan Pham says: “I think the fact that this bill runs across so much other legislation, and impacts so much of what we understand, and sort of like, the legislative baseline of how Aotearoa works, we thought that it was really important that everyone got to have their say” – see Giles Dexter’s RNZ report today, Fast-track submissions: Hundreds will miss out on speaking at committee

Similarly, Labour’s Rachel Brooking says that it’s even more vital to hear the submissions than usual: “one of the things that the bill does is stops public participation and processes where there normally would be public participation. So it’s even more important that those people are heard”.

As the RNZ report explains, the chair of the committee – National’s David MacLeod – points out the Fast Track Bill has attracted an exceptionally high level of individual submissions that are essentially just duplicates of the templates that organisations like Forest & Bird and the Environmental Defence Society encouraged their supporters to send in. MacLeod says: “clearly, a form submission, once you’ve read one, you’ve read the whole lot. It doesn’t particularly add more value to that process.”

The situation has been labelled “absurd” by veteran political journalist Richard Harman. In his daily email newsletter yesterday, Harman criticised “pressure groups” trying to “flood” the parliamentary process with low-quality submissions. Although the process should involve “depth and time spent questioning submitters”, according to Harman, this won’t occur.

Submissions mostly oppose the Fast Track Bill

It is clear that the vast majority of submissions oppose the Fast Track Bill—mostly because thousands of individuals have submitted them at the urging of various environmental groups. Of course, there is something of a dichotomy in which environmental groups oppose the bill and business groups support it.

Yet this dichotomy has been less apparent than might be expected. So far, several business and farmer groups have provided some critique and recommended significant changes to the bill.

The Employers and Manufacturers Association presented to the committee yesterday. Although they support the bill in general, they criticise it and say it is vital that the new processes are only temporary. This is best covered by Richard Harman’s article today, Our slow regional councils (paywalled)

Harman reports that Alan MacDonald representing the Employers Association at the select committee hearings, and said the real answer to the problem with consenting processes was to replace the existing Resource Management Act with a new environmental consenting process that had buy-in from all: “that’s something that we need to agree on cross-party and very quickly.”

MacDonald explained that his lobby group had been working with environmentalists such as the Environmental Defence Society to progress this, and he didn’t want to see the Fast Track Act deflect from this urgency. Therefore, he suggested that the legislation should contain a subset clause to ensure the Fast Track doesn’t become permanent or stick around too long.

The Association also expressed discomfort with ministers making final decisions on resource consents, saying that “We’ve had them in the past, and they’ve been challenged all the way to the High Court and beyond, where they have been gotten wrong on both sides of the House.”

According to Harman, MacDonald also criticised the bill in what it proposed for the makeup of the various authorities involved in the new consents process: “We do think that the panel and both the ministerial side and the advisory panel could do with a bit more balance, perhaps including the Minister of Environmental Conservation and also in the advisory panels.”

The presentation yesterday from Federated Farmers was also surprising. Although they support the Bill’s objectives, they have serious concerns, especially around excluding the public from the Fast-Track decision-making process. The farmers’ group emphasised the importance of “fair process” and the community’s ability to feed into decisions, especially if infrastructure projects involve private land use.

Harman reported that the Federation’s principal policy advisor, Natasha Berkett, said broader community consultation and debate were needed: “These types of projects don’t occur in isolation; they occur in communities… And, if people feel that land has been taken in an inappropriate way or a process has not occurred in an appropriate way, then there can be a lot of discord around that project. And that leads to this loss of social license and lack of support for the project as well.”

For more on business critiques of the Fast-Track, see Fox Meyer’s Newsroom article, Mining lobby: Fast-track bill’s ministerial powers ‘not unusual’ 

This reports that Meridan Energy, as with Federated Farmers, opposes the concentration of decision-making powers in Cabinet, “suggesting that the final say ought to rest with the expert panel.”

Likewise, for more on Federated Farmers’ submission and why they are reluctant to support it, see Fox Meyer’s Federated Farmers’ support for fast-track bill ‘ambiguous’

Environmentalists passionate opposed

Unsurprisingly, environmental organisations have been presenting the most passionate submissions against the Fast-Track. One group that stood out in their presentation yesterday was the Friends of Pākiri Beach, who have spent years trying to stop sand mining in the waters off their beach. They have had successes in the Environment Court but are concerned that companies such as McCallum Bros, who have also submitted in favour of the bill, will get the green light despite their previous failures to obtain consent.

The submission of the Friends of Pākiri Beach, amongst others, was covered yesterday in RNZ’s Pākiri residents would be ‘crushed’ if sand mining fast-tracked, committee told

For a more in-depth look at the campaign of these environmentalists and why they’re worried about the new bill, see Farah Hancock’s RNZ report, Why Pākiri locals fear the Government’s Fast Track Bill could steal away protection of their pristine coastline

But for the most passionate and articulate environmental submission on the bill, it’s worth reading Anne Salmond’s: My open submission on this radical, flawed fast-track bill

She concludes that New Zealanders, once they realise how the legislation favours companies over communities, will realise “that like the economy, Parliament is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful, and our democracy is broken. Around the world, we can see what happens when this kind of cynicism and anger is ignited. It’s a frightening prospect.”

Finally, one of the main objections to the Fast-Track is about the influence of vested interests and the need for more transparency in businesses lobbying ministers to get their projects pushed through. And today, Newsroom’s David Williams reports that there are good reasons to doubt that the processes will be transparent and above board – pointing to the interactions between one potential Fast-Track applicant and one of the ministers who will have the power to grant consents – see: Jones suggested fast-track bid at undeclared dinner (paywalled)

According to this report, the Minister for Resources, Shane Jones, had dinner with a coal mining company boss, Barry Bragg, on the West Coast in February. Jones didn’t record the meeting in his officially released ministerial diaries because he says it was an unscheduled “last-minute” event. Three days later, Bragg wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure Christopher Bishop and said: I had dinner with Resources and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones last Friday and he suggested I write to you to ask that the Te Kuha coal project be considered for listing in the fast-track and one-stop shop bill.”

The article also reports the response of Forest & Bird’s advocacy group manager, Richard Capie, who says the fast-track legislation “opens the gateway to unbridled lobbying” and “This letter represents the tip of the iceberg.”

Dr Bryce Edwards

Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington

Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its arguments for such a bold reform. As part of a new series providing scrutiny of the fast-track legislation (#FastTrackWatch), this first column rounds up the commentary and arguments in favour of what the Government is proposing.

Chris Bishop puts the case for getting things done

The architect of the overturn of RMA is Infrastructure and Housing Minister Chris Bishop. He has developed the new regime, with the central purpose of enabling the country to “get things done” – i.e. for development to occur. This goal comes in the context of widespread awareness and consensus that things have been moving too slowly in New Zealand, and major and important infrastructure and housing have been held back by structural and governmental regulation.

Much of this relates to the Resource Management Act 1991, which most politicians want replaced. Bishop’s answer is to essentially deregulate the sector and turbo-charge the ability of developers to get their projects off the ground. And in finding a way to do this, he’s picked up what the last Labour Government had already done with their own Covid-era fast-track processes and expanded that into a more permanent and extensive escalated process.

The new processes mean that three cabinet ministers (those responsible for transport, regional development, and infrastructure) can select a select number of development proposals to essentially get exemptions from normal resource consenting processes. An expert panel is also involved in advising the ministers and suggesting conditions to be placed on developers, but the three ministers have the ultimate say.

Bishop explained all of this in his column in the Herald yesterday, in which he paints a dark picture of the status quo, which justifies a new approach: “It’s too hard to get things done in New Zealand. Too hard to build new renewable energy, too hard to build roads and public transport, too hard to build houses and too hard to develop the sort of sensible economic development projects that provide jobs and growth” – see: Fast Track Approvals Bill – New Zealand has become an obstruction economy (paywalled)

To illustrate how the status quo needs radical change, Bishop is good at using anecdotes about the frustrations of a dysfunctional and bureaupathetic consents system: “I recently met a housing developer who had finally received consent after a three-year process only to have an official turn up on the very day earthworks were to begin and demand a Wildlife Act permit. That process took more than a year to complete. Such ineptitude would be funny if kids weren’t living in cars and a generation were not locked out of home ownership.”

Bishop has cleverly turned the tables on critics who has sought to tar the fast-track process as being about helping construction and mining companies to get their way. Instead, he sells his solution as being about improving housing availability, making roads safer, and decarbonising the economy to fight climate change.

He also puts forward a very clear explanation of how the new fast-track process will work as a streamlined “one-stop-shop” process for developers: “it doesn’t just deal with resource consents, it also deals with all the other things often needed for development, like conservation permits, heritage and so on. It makes sense to do all of that at the same time, rather than strung out over many years and with multiple different government agencies.”

Shane Jones’ populist approach

New Zealand First’s Shane Jones is the second biggest voice selling the fast-track proposal to the public. And although Bishop is the main architect of it, it’s been said that Jones, as Resources Minister, is the schemes’ “godfather”. Crucially, he was responsible for getting the scheme included in the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First.

Jones’ sales pitch for the fast-track is less subtle than that of Bishop, and more populist, saying it’s about driving a metaphorical bulldozer through all the red- and green-tape to get things done for “the people”, especially in the neglected regions. He promises more jobs and economic growth as a result. It’s all very much in line with his “Make New Zealand Great Again” mode in which leaders need to break rules to get things done.

Jones takes delight in promising more consents for the extractive sector, including mining on conservation land, and appeals to New Zealanders, who he says are sick of environmental protections slowing down progress too much. In debating the new legislation in Parliament, Jones explained the new approach: “Gone are the days of the multicoloured skink, the kiwi, many other species that have been weaponised to deny regional New Zealand communities their right to a livelihood, their entitlement to live peacefully with their environment but derive an income to meet the costs of raising families in regional New Zealand.”

More famously, Jones has also referred to allowing land that is currently protected against mining to protect the Archey’s frog: “In those areas called the Department of Conservation estate, where it’s stewardship land, stewardship land is not DOC land, and if there is a mineral, if there is a mining opportunity and it’s impeded by a blind frog, goodbye, Freddy.”

Mike Hosking: The Most important thing the Govt is doing

The one person outside of government and industry circles who is almost a lone voice in championing the fast-track regime is Newstalk broadcaster Mike Hosking. He put forward his best defence of it this week, saying the proposal “might well be the most important thing this Government does” given that New Zealand’s has an infrastructure crisis and needs to get on with building and fixing things, which is what this bill is about – see: This Government was elected on change — embrace it

Hosking reminds us that the current Resource Management Act isn’t working, and so it’s important that we innovate to try new ways of getting on with creating economic growth and rebuilding the country. It’s a message that will resonate with a public that is impatient for change and transformation, especially given that this is a widespread feeling that “the country is broken” or in decline.

Hosking’s other key argument is to attack those that are questioning the fast-track proposal – he describes them as “incessant moaners” and “handwringers” who are holding back progress. Here’s his key point: “Submissions on the legislation closed last week and you can imagine who turned up. It’s the same people who believe not doing things is the preferred option. The same people who have held this country to ransom over their individual myopic view of what’s important to save, or treasure, or talk more about.”

The New Zealand Initiative: In favour of centralising power in Wellington

The pro-business lobby group and think tank the New Zealand Initiative has come out firmly in favour of the Fast Track Approvals Bill, saying that it’s “a necessary step to streamline decision-making for projects with significant economic benefits, and it should proceed.”

This group is normally an advocate for “localism”, devolution, and against the ethos of “Wellington knows best” – which means they might have been expected to rail against this concentration of power in the Beehive. But in this case, they support the Government taking back control so that they can push through development without cause for local participation and impediments in the decisions.

The Initiative’s main spokesperson on the issue, Nick Clark, has written a column for the Herald this month about how the bill might not be perfect, but it should be supported because it “represents an improvement on the status quo” – see: Fast-tracking for infrastructure fix is needed now (paywalled)

In talking about the concerning imperfections in the fast-tracking proposal, such as the increased likelihood of corruption, the Initiative concludes that these aren’t important enough to prevent the Bill from being implemented in its current form, especially given the urgency of New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit.

The Initiative therefore takes a highly pragmatic argument in favour of fast-tracking, pointing to, like Bishop, the many economic problems facing the country, which now means that a centralisation of powers is desirable in order to push through developments, even if they are opposed by locals.

Infrastructure Commission

Some fast-track supporters have used material produced by the Government’s Infrastructure Commission to show the need for the new reforms. Although the Commission doesn’t appear to have taken a stance on this major infrastructure issue, it has published a report on the problems with the existing resource management rules.

The report was prepared for the Commission by the Sapere consultancy company, and it shows that the current consenting process costs the economy about $1.3 billion per year. It also pointed out that over the last five years, the average time taken to get consent has doubled.

The Commission is also under pressure to come up with ways to speed up developments. A poll last year showed that 61 per cent of New Zealanders believe that not enough is being done to meet the country’s infrastructure needs. Priorities, according to survey respondents, were flood defences and new housing supply. For more on this, see Andrea Vance’s recent column, Why Nimbyism is the biggest risk to the Government’s fast-track regime (paywalled)

Business interests welcome fast-tracking

“Manna from heaven” is how the fast-track bill is being described by the chief executive of the mining lobby group Straterra, Josie Vidal. She says that “the country is in trouble. We need to get on and do some things”, and suggests that politicians have become too ponderous in their decision-making – see Brent Edwards’ NBR article, Opponents and supporters of fast-track bill want changes (paywalled)

As to the criticisms of the bill, Vidal writes this off: “There is a lot of fearmongering from environmental groups.”

Similarly, Newsroom’s editor Tim Murphy has said: “This Govt is certainly making some people happy. The mining, marine aquaculture, roading, energy and land developer industries must be wondering whether they’ve died and gone to heaven with the new fast-tracking law.”

Certainly, businesses and other lobby groups have reacted very positively to the fast-track bill. Press statements have been put out in its support by Infrastructure New Zealand, Transporting New Zealand, Energy Resources Aotearoa, and Civil Contractors NZ.

Some iwi are also supportive of the fast-track, as many have economic interests in aquaculture and energy industry. For example, Ngāi Tahu has been reported as hoping to use the new fast-track to finally get the greenlight for its previously-blocked proposal for a massive salmon farm off Stewart Island.

The public’s appeal for “getting things done”

The fast-track regime is likely to be very popular with the public. There’s a widespread frustration with how little government gets achieved, and how society is held back by regulations. This is especially the case in terms of building and resource management consents.

….This column continues. To access this, please follow this link to the  Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz) and subscribe: Upgrade to paid.

Political Roundup: Labour needs Mahutu to go, but she’s too powerful

The pressure on Jacinda Ardern to sack Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta is building. But Mahuta is too powerful within the Labour Party to get rid of easily.

The Three Waters reforms have become one of the Labour Government’s greatest liabilities. While there is widespread consensus on the need for significant reform of water infrastructure, including from opposition political parties and local government, the specific reforms the Government have dogmatically pursued remain unconvincing to most, if not downright offensive to many.

Poll after poll has shown that the public are opposed to the reforms. While everyone wants to see water fixed, the Minister has presented a reform programme that has been botched from the start. Mahuta has failed to convince the public of all the contentious elements of the reforms – from co-governance element through to legal entrenchment of the anti-privatisation provisions.

Mahuta’s entrenchment debacle

The entrenchment drama has really made clear that Mahuta is a power unto herself in the Labour Government, and beyond reproach by Ardern. Although murkiness remains over exactly how and why Labour ended up pushing through the constitutionally objectionable and anti-democratic entrenchment provisions for Three Waters, there is now little doubt that Mahuta was driving the change.

Mahuta’s demeanor in the aftermath of the entrenchment scandal will be infuriating her colleagues. After all, she has been publicly blaming everyone else in the party but herself for the botch up.

The chain of events over the entrenchment is now becoming a bit clearer, with the obvious conclusion that Mahuta caused this problem for Labour, and seemingly defied the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and breached the Cabinet Manual – normally all sackable offences.

Cabinet made a clear decision not to entrench any of the Three Waters legislation, especially after they were made aware of the official advice that this would be unconstitutional and dangerous. Mahuta appears to have conspired with the Green Party to bring in a last-minute amendment during parliamentary urgency to do just this.

It appears that Mahuta, as the Minister responsible for getting the legislation passed, and working with Green MP Eugenie Sage, then choose not to inform any of her colleagues of what was planned and what this would mean. By design or otherwise, it appears that she neglected to inform the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins who is the Leader of the House, and Attorney General David Parker that she was arranging for the Government to vote in the anti-democratic entrenchment provision that Cabinet had decided against.

Since then, Ardern has given cover to Mahuta by explaining to the public that it was a “mistake” made collectively by “the team” rather than Mahuta. But Mahuta herself has spurned that spin and thrown both the PM and other colleagues under the bus by speaking out publicly with a different story.

Mahuta has made it very clear that the vote wasn’t a misunderstanding, as the Prime Minister has tried to suggest, but a conscious attempt to bolster the reforms. She also pointed out that the entrenchment issue had actually been discussed at a caucus meeting. What’s more, she pointed out that Labour MPs had plenty of forewarning of the Green Party’s entrenchment amendment, suggesting that her colleagues, and especially those on the related select committee, should have read the material produced about the bill outlining the details of the entrenchment issue. As the Herald’s deputy political editor Thomas Coughlan writes today, “Mahuta turned on her caucus, even as they closed ranks to defend her”.

Coughlan argues that Ardern has bent over backwards to prevent Mahuta being blamed for the debacle, but Mahuta has spurned such help, publicly contradicting the PM on the issue, which has only inflamed divisions within Labour. Coughlan says: “Mahuta openly diverged from the Prime Minister, treating the press gallery to a spectacle more reminiscent of the National Party circa 2020-21 than the modern Labour Party.”

The Local Government Minister has also made clear that she knew of the constitutional objections to what they were doing. And as Coughlan argues today, it was Mahuta’s responsibility to proactively inform her colleagues what they were voting for in entrenching the Three Waters provisions.

Increasing calls for Mahuta to go

Thomas Coughlan writes today that “Mahuta is likely to leave Cabinet soon and possibly by involuntary means.” There are certainly a lot of calls for her to be sacked.

Some of these calls are being made by the opposition National Party. Reading which way the political winds are blowing, leader Christopher Luxon is seeking to be associated with any demotion of Mahuta – in the same way that earlier in the year, when Poto Williams’ position as Police Minister was becoming untenable, Luxon was able to call for her sacking and claim a political scalp.

National argues Mahuta has breached Cabinet collective responsibility rules – normally a sackable offence. It is certainly true that the Cabinet Manual states clearly: “Once Cabinet makes a decision, Ministers must support it, regardless of their personal views”. And in this case Cabinet made a decision not to entrench any of the Three Waters legislation, and then Mahuta appears to have organised and participated in getting Labour to vote for an amendment to do precisely that.

As Newstalk’s Heather du Plessis-Allan argues today, “it’s frankly embarrassing for the PM to be ignored”. She argues Mahuta should be sacked, not just for her role in Three Waters, but also because of “the lingering perception that something isn’t quite right about her husband attracting all those Government contracts.”

Why Mahuta can’t be sacked

There is a reluctance by some commentators and journalists to discuss a major factor in stopping Mahuta from being sacked – Labour’s very large and powerful Māori caucus. The fifteen-strong Māori caucus – and six out of the 20 Cabinet Ministers – is the biggest ever in Labour. Insiders say that they have incredibly strong leverage over Ardern and her fellow ministers.

Mahuta is one of the leaders of the Māori caucus, alongside Willie Jackson. Some commentators paint a picture of Ardern as being held hostage to the agendas of the senior Māori leaders. For example, journalist Graham Adams, has written about how Ardern doesn’t show any great enthusiasm for, or belief in, the Three Waters reform programme, and as a very cautious and poll-driven leader, “would normally back away from any policy as widely disliked as Three Waters soon after the poll results arrived on her desk”. But in this case that would cause a rebellion from the Māori caucus.

Labour’s Māori MPs are particularly worried about the potential for Te Pati Māori to win back more of the Māori seats and the Māori vote in general. They are therefore  note prepared to hand Te Pati Māori a huge stick to beat Labour with.

The Herald’s Thomas Coughlan points to this in his column today, trying to explain why Ardern seems so reluctant to stand up to Mahuta: “No one really knows why Ardern has burned through so much political capital defending her. It could be that Mahuta’s standing within the Māori caucus makes her too powerful to sack, or it could be an example of Ardern’s mercy and kindness, giving Mahuta a chance to get her yearned-for reforms through Parliament before retiring gracefully from Cabinet next year, and from Parliament at the next election.”

Heather du Plessis-Allan is more forthright about Mahuta’s powerful position: “she will not be sacked. She is one of the leaders of the Māori Caucus and they are powerful. I doubt very much that they’ll let the PM sack her. Nanaia is untouchable. You can see that from the way the PM has gone out of her way to defend Nanaia in this and say it was a team mistake. So even though Nanaia is causing all kinds of problems for Jacinda, and even though the Nats are right in that she’s probably done enough to be sacked, I bet you now she’s going nowhere.”

Similarly, today Peter Dunne suggests that a likely Cabinet reshuffle in late January might not allow the Prime Minister to sack Mahuta or Jackson: “both are senior members of Labour’s highly influential Māori Caucus – the so-called First Fifteen – which makes it almost impossible for the Prime Minister to act against them.”

According to Dunne, “Mahuta’s credibility has been severely damaged by the Three Waters saga, but her value arises from being Labour’s bridge to Tainui and the Kingitanga.”

Will Mahuta and Three Waters be blamed for a Labour Govt loss?

There should be no doubt that Mahuta’s reputation is at an all-time low. She was supposed to be one of the stars of Labour’s historically-powerful government this term, but has instead become one of the villains. She started the term with accolades for her new role as Minister of Foreign Affairs, but has performed relatively poorly in that role, as well as in her Local Government portfolio.

Interestingly, the Herald’s Audrey Young, recently gave Mahuta only 5 out of 10 in her evaluation of Government ministers. Young forecast that Mahuta was due to lose her portfolio in the next reshuffle due largely to her mismanagement of Three Waters. Earlier in the year, Young pronounced that Mahuta was “distracted by Three Waters reforms and a series of stories about public sector contracts awarded to her consultant husband.”

Mahuta has been accused of pushing the Three Waters reforms through to benefit iwi leaders, who are being given 50 per cent of the control over the new water companies.

Coughlan says today: “The problem that has dogged these reforms – a problem that followed her all the way into caucus this week – has been a lack of transparency and trustworthiness.” He details how the reform process has involved spin and deception from the Government since very early on.

A bigger problem is that the Three Waters reforms continue to impact Labour’s reputation and popularity very negatively, threatening to help sink the government at the next election. Two polls out this week, showed that the party had sunk to historic lows in support. First the 1News-Kantar poll on Monday put Labour on only 33 per cent support, which was the lowest the poll had recorded for the party since coming to power in 2017. And then on Wednesday the Roy Morgan poll gave a more shocking figure of 25 per cent support.

It’s worth pointing out that Roy Morgan had the most accurate poll results in the lead up to the last election. And the 25 per cent result is probably the lowest that any government has polled since the early 1990s when Ruth Richardson’s radical neoliberal economic reforms dragged down Jim Bolger’s National Government. Notably, Bolger’s eventual response was to sack Richardson. However, Ardern is in a bind, and due to the power of Labour’s Māori caucus, both Three Waters and Nanaia Mahuta look set to continue as an albatross around Labour’s neck.

Further reading on Three Waters

Thomas Coughlan (Herald): How Nanaia Mahuta lost control of Three Waters, and Jacinda Ardern lost control of Nanaia Mahuta (Paywalled)
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Christopher Luxon too trigger-happy with call to sack Nanaia Mahuta, but her clock is ticking
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk ZB): Nanaia Mahuta should be sacked, but she’s going nowhere
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Jacinda Ardern has lost control over Nanaia Mahuta and must sack her – National
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern sticks by Nanaia Mahuta despite criticism over Three Waters entrenchment row
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Christopher Luxon calls for Nanaia Mahuta to be sacked from Cabinet
William Hewett (Newshub): Christopher Luxon says asset sales ‘not on the agenda’, claims Government trying to deflect from Three Waters entrenchment clause
Grady Connell (Today FM): Luxon promises not to privatise any water assets if elected next year
Casper McGuire (1News): Luxon and Ardern spar as National leader calls for Mahuta’s sacking
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Christopher Luxon calls for Nanaia Mahuta to be sacked from Cabinet
Stefan Dimitrof (Whakaata Māori): PM determined to keep Three Waters in public ownership despite backroom fumble
Brent Edwards (NBR): Entrenchment mess confirms value of academics in ivory towers (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): 3 Waters is now spinning out of control – Cabinet Reshuffle is urgently required
Hilary Calvert (ODT): Entrenchment fiasco tests our trust in govt
Janine Rankin (Manawatū Standard): Palmerston North will not oppose Three Waters changes

Other items of interest and importance today

PARLIAMENT
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): Jacinda’s Manic Ministry
Peter Dunne: Cabinet reshuffles do not save sinking ships
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): The ‘remarkable levels of access’ political donors get for their money
Max Rashbrooke (RNZ): Chief Ombudsman’s OIA inquiry another pointer to govt’s lack of transparency
Peter Gluckman and Anne Bardsley (Stuff): The rush to pass new laws is eroding the public’s trust
Ben Thomas (Stuff): How does Labour solve a problem like Willie and his ‘certain style’?
Max Rashbrooke (Spinoff): Campaigning on economic security sounds dull, but it might be Labour’s best option
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): The 1 News Kantar Poll could be the kick up the backside Labour needs
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): Poor old Luxon having to solve the Winston Peters/David Seymour Rubix cube
Richard Prebble: More comebacks than Rocky
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Roy Morgan Poll – Labour crash – Hard Right wanting children in ankle bracelets soars
RNZ: ‘Incredibly difficult’ for National to win Hamilton West by-election – Luxon
Jo Moir (Newsroom): PM won’t accept political environment’s changed forever

MEDIA
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): Is Labour going to kill the public media merger?
Wayne Hope (Daily Blog): Media at the Crossroads
Bob Gregory (Newsroom): Merging TVNZ and RNZ: some history
Mana Wikaire-Lewis (Whakaata Māori): Canada and Aotearoa’s indigenous broadcasters to share content

ECONOMY, BUSINESS
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): Reserve Bank’s cheap funding ends with $19.02b drawn down (paywalled)
RNZ: Ruapehu Alpine Lifts: Government to hand ski fields operator another $6m
Daniel Smith (Stuff): How bad could a Reserve Bank engineered recession get?
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): How high are mortgage interest rates really going to go?
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Next year is shaping up to be a turning point for savers
David Hargreaves (Interest): ‘A step too far’- Kiwibank economists question OCR call
Rebecca Stevenson (Interest): Academic says building supplies market study isn’t bold enough to bring real competition
RNZ: Commerce Commission recommends action to improve competition in building supplies market
Jonathan Mitchell (NBR): Smaller building suppliers big winners from ComCom report: chair (paywalled)
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Big hardware retailer faces court action for blocking competition
David Hargreaves (Interest): ‘RBNZ to develop ‘monitoring framework’ to keep an eye on cryptoasset developments
Brianna MciLraith (Stuff): By the numbers: How are we spending our money?
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Outdoor advertisers using smart technology to reach more customers
Rebecca Stevenson (Interest): Mobile traders shut up shop or move on after Commerce Commission’s compliance clampdown
Tim Hunter (NBR): SkyCity’s NZ management implicated in Austrac claim (paywalled)
Arena Williams and Stuart Smith (Stuff): Kiwis need confidence that Superannuation will always be there when they need it

EMPLOYMENT
Tom Taylor (RNZ): NZ firefighters union set to vote on major pay settlement
RNZ: Firefighters could see $20,000 pay rise next year following strike action
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Firefighter Steve Devine upset with FENZ ‘lack of accountability’ following additional funding
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): FENZ CEO squirms over hard questions after 18 months wait for firefighter funding
Stuff: Uber driver backpay claims could reach millions of dollars, First Union says
Dita De Boni (NBR): Uber drivers apply in droves to be eligible for back pay (paywalled)
Will Trafford (Whakaata Māori): Uptick in Māori cadetships follows gov’t funding boost
RNZ: Chartered Accountants ANZ members’ pay rose by 11 percent this year

COVID-19
Henry Cooke (Guardian): A royal commission gives New Zealand a chance to reckon with what Covid did to us
Henry Cooke: The five months that destroyed the Covid consensus
Jamie Morton (Herald): The three things experts want NZ’s next pandemic response to be (paywalled)
Roger Partridge (Herald): Covid-19 Royal Commission scope not enough (paywalled)
Herald Editorial: Third wave of Covid raises questions over antiviral drugs (paywalled)
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Covid-19: Next vaccinations likely before winter but warnings ‘we can’t boost our way out’
Adam Pearse (Herald): Covid-19: Omicron vaccine rollout could align with 2023 winter – Ministry of Health
Rowan Quinn (RNZ): Reported daily Covid-19 cases top 7000 for first time since July
Rowan Quinn (RNZ): Vaccinated donor blood: Parents’ meeting with doctors ‘hijacked’ by anti-vax support person
Logan Church (1News): Court becomes guardian of baby who needs urgent heart surgery

TRANSPORT
1News: Poll: Huge support for permanent half-price public transport
Simon Bridges (NBR): Transport and other moving issues (paywalled)
Herald: National takes $350m ‘slush fund’ to Auditor-General, Michael Wood says National MPs lacked ‘wit’ to bid for projects themselves
William Hewett (Newshub): National furious after Labour gets heads up on $350m transport fund
RNZ: Trial using more invasive road safety cameras snaps nearly 200,000 offences
RNZ: Travel industry leaders worried over flight capacity, urge govt to ensure security of fuel supply

CRIME, CORRECTIONS
Adam Pearse (Herald): Fast intervention for 10 to 13-year-old ram raiders and robbers – new Govt package
RNZ: Govt brings in fast-track plan to deal with children who commit crimes
Avina Vidyadharan (Stuff): Chairs and racial slurs hurled – another day on the youth crime frontline
Lianne Dalziel (Newsroom):  Rinse, ram raid and repeat – politicians lack the courage of their criminal convictions
Sunny Kaushal (Herald): Let dairies sell a safer product to reduce crime (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): John Campbell’s Journalism on Youth Crime once again saves us from the ‘Get tough on crime’ cheerleaders

HEALTH
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Last night’s funding announcements show why Pharmac needs reform
Isaac Davison (Herald): KPMG brought in to assist Government’s health reforms (paywalled)
Ella Stewart (RNZ): The shadow of racism over cancer diagnosis, treatment and outcomes
Brent Edwards (NBR): Net trust in ACC not as good as it could be (paywalled)
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Ethnic leaders form new health collective to bridge inequities
Debbie Jamieson (Stuff): Southland Hospice pays $1.5m for Queenstown base, but hospice up to 15 years away
Natalie Akoorie (Herald): Complain to the police or we will, advocates tell Ministry for disabled over alleged neglect

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Nanaia Mahuta criticised for not corresponding with Russian Ambassador since Ukraine war started
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Call for NZ to ban ‘transplant tourism’

ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Stats NZ confirms drop in household climate emissions during 2020 Covid lockdown
No Right Turn: Climate Change: More subsidised pollution
Te Okiwa McLean, Ethan Oneroa (Te Karere): Enviro minister ‘failed’ to keep waterways clean – Māori lawyer
RNZ: Group plans further legal action against govt after landmark decision on crayfish catch limits
Ian Llewellyn (NBR): Carbon prices drop at last auction of year (paywalled)
Nathan Cooper (The Conversation): Avoiding climate breakdown depends on protecting Earth’s biodiversity – can the COP15 summit deliver?

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Tina Law (Press): Christchurch City Council ‘heads down the path of selling assets’
Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk): Christchurch council greenlights asset sale evaluationr (paywalled)
Todd Niall (Stuff): Report finds no conflict of interest on Auckland Council agency board
Stefan Dimitrof (Whakaata Māori): Dargaville hikoi planned for Wednesday protesting Kaipara mayor’s karakia ban
James Perry (Whakaata Māori): ‘Pai, kino rānei ki a ia’ – Glavish promises to meet Kaipara Mayor whether he wants to or not
Lauren Crimp (RNZ): Timaru council ignores health officials’ calls to cut back pokies

HOUSING
Kiri Gillespie (Bay of Plenty Times): Tauranga’s housing crisis: Demand for social housing soars 360%
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): From emergency motel to dream home for family of four
Herewini Waikato (Whkaata Māori): Ngāti Awa win – Ōpihi Whanaungakore will not be touched for now
RNZ: Ōpihi burial ground appeal – developer and Māori groups to meet out of court

CHILD WELFARE
Felix Walton (RNZ): Fewer Kiwi children living in poverty but disparity between Māori and Pākehā increasing
Jimmy Ellingham (RNZ): Abuse in care inquiry: Victims distressed as wait for compensation drags on
RNZ: New aid launched to help more parents put controls on streaming services

TREATY OF WAITANGI
Te Aniwa Hurihanganui (1News): Māori ASupreme Court rules in favour of Wairarapa Māori
RNZ: Wairarapa Māori win legal battle over power station
Mana Wikaire-Lewis (Public Interest Journalism): Ngāpuhi backs Ngāi Tahu’s blocking of ‘unjust’ fisheries changes

EDUCATION
Kate Newton (Stuff): What’s going on with school attendance?
Mark Sheehan and Bronwyn Wood (Newsroom): NZ schools move away from ‘goodies and baddies’ history

SPORT
Emile Donovan (RNZ): Are our Olympians actually employees?
Rebecca Howard (BusinessDesk): Former governor-general Patsy Reddy to chair NZ Rugby (paywalled)
James Perry (Whakaata Māori): Bailey Mackey, Farah Palmer elected deputy chairs as changes made at NZ Rugby

OTHER
Karl du Fresne: Why social cohesion should be the key issue in 2023
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Security Intelligence Service holds copy of all incoming traveller data
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Union goes after National’s claims of ‘bloated bureaucracy’, calls for release of plan
Alan Thompson (Bay of Plenty Times): Why no inquiry into Whakaari tragedy? (paywalled)
RNZ: No supporters show up for far-right Counterspin Media pair’s latest court appearance
RNZ: Some North Island, West Coast customers hardest hit by Transpower price rises
RNZ: Science system reform needed to tackle environmental challenges – Verrall
RNZ: Google’s most searched terms for 2022 in New Zealand
Chris Schulz (Spinoff): From Gayford to guacamole, here’s what we Googled in 2022

Earlier this week, in the wake of a decision by the Supreme Court of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Government announced it would draft a Bill which would extend the franchise in New Zealand to sixteen- and seventeen-year-old citizens and permanent residents. (See this press release on Scoop from the ‘Make it 16’ advocacy group, this on Evening Report from The Conversation, and this from RNZ.)

Indeed, the denial of the franchise to these younger people may contradict the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Yet, in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Government explicitly denies Covid19 booster vaccinations to people based on their ethnicity. (See this on Stuff.) Contradicting the Bill of Rights has not even been discussed with respect to vaccination rights.

I have no concern about sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds being less capable of voting wisely than, say, their parents. Nevertheless, whether this is a good idea for 2026 should be seen in the context of the history of democracy. Democracy is not a form of governance which arrived in one hit. Rather, democracy worldwide is a long-running ‘project’ which remains incomplete, more incomplete in some countries than others.

The progress of the democracy project can depend on the sequence of democratic reforms undertaken.

Sequences of Democratic Reforms in United Kingdom and New Zealand.

The first step towards democracy in England was the Magna Carta, in 1215. Further steps were taken in the English (and Scottish) Civil War of the 1640s, when the King was deposed, and then beheaded, by Parliamentarians. These 1640s’ developments were problematic, and largely reversed with the restoration in 1660. But a big step was then taken in 1688, when the Glorious Revolution in England and Scotland replaced the absolute monarch with a constitutional monarchy.

Early steps on the road to democracy were power struggles between King and a Parliament of nobles. The mass of the people were largely unaffected by the gradual gains made by Parliament; in some cases they could be worse off, having less recourse to the King to override abuses perpetrated by the nobility.

In the eighteenth century, important steps to democracy were taken in the United States (1770s and 1780s) and France (from 1789 to 1798); both in the forms of Liberal (or ‘bourgeois’) revolutions. Again, these may not have much brought many people in these countries closer to the levers of power; we may note, for example, the matters of women and of slaves. These revolutions led to a conservative reaction in the United Kingdom, a formal Union from 1801.

Nevertheless, democratic reforms of a progressive nature did take place: namely, the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, 1884, and 1918; each of which significantly extended the franchise in the United Kingdom. In addition, ‘plural voting’ (some people being able to vote more than once) was abolished in 1848. This meant the United Kingdom essentially had a system of ‘one man, one vote’ by 1918. While the 1918 reform also gave the vote to some women, it was in 1928 that women and men aged over 21 had the vote on an equal and universal basis. The United Kingdom voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969; and to 16 in Scotland in 2014.

New Zealand essentially inherited the British Law of 1832. All Māori men over 21 gained the right to vote (in special Māori electorates) in 1867. From then, universal male voting was introduced in 1879, and plural voting was eliminated in 1889. Working-class men gained the vote in 1879 (1867 for Māori), and all women in 1893; the only cases where New Zealand reforms preceded equivalent British reforms.

New Zealand of course introduced the critical reform of ‘proportional representation’ in 1996; a reform still awaiting in the United Kingdom. So New Zealand did precede the United Kingdom in the more critical extension to democracy.

Elite versus Non-Elite Voting

The key step changing the class balance-of-power was the ‘universal male franchise’. The female franchise was of course important, although working-class men then were reticent about this, believing that, on balance, women would vote for conservative candidates. That ‘concern’ was probably valid, from the working-class point of view; although, fortunately, the critical universal reform had already taken place.

On this matter of women voting more conservatively, we may note the poem by James K Baxter – The Ballad of Calvary Street – with its famous line “National Mum and Labour Dad”. Baxter wrote this in 1944, when he was 17 years old. (And here’s an academic reference to that line, in Landfall volume 16, 1962.) Many would argue that women this century vote less conservatively than men; but, then, the meaning of ‘conservative’ may have changed; try substituting the words ‘privileged’ or ‘advantaged’ instead. A vote for Labour may now be at least as much a vote for ‘no substantial change’ as a vote for National once was.

Sequence does matter. If, in the nineteenth century, middle-class women had got the vote before working-class men, then there could have been a considerable delay in granting the vote to working-class men.

There may be similar concerns with the proposal to lower the voting age. The push to lower the age appears to be driven by the new elite, or at least the teenage children of the new elite. And, it is almost certainly true that, at present, new-elite young people are significantly more likely to vote than are working-class or underclass youth. So the question is whether this mooted lowering of the voting age will in any way impede more important and more necessary democratic reforms. Certainly, in the past, it has been elite interests which have been the barriers to the eventual achievement of hard-won extensions to non-elites. (Or, maybe lowering the voting age might facilitate further democratic reforms which benefit non-elites?)

Extensions to Democracy unrelated to the extension of the Franchise

The introduction of proportional representation was clearly the most important of these in New Zealand’s history. This reform meant that one person’s vote had the same value as any other person’s vote.

(We see many overseas examples where this is not the case. The most obvious is that voters in California have zero influence in choosing who the President will be, and almost zero influence in determining the balance of power in the senate. There are two issues here. Re the president vote, California always votes Democrat; it is not even close to being a ‘swing state’. Re the Senate vote, the ratio of population to senators is 20,000,000 to 1. In neighbouring Nevada, which is also a swing state, there are 1,600,000 people per senator. Nevada senators have the same weight in the federal Senate as do California senators.)

The discussion around democracy gets more diffuse when it goes beyond ballot-box issues. Here we move into the realm of economic democracy, and the importance of expressing constitutional equality in the area of public property rights. Huge amounts of each country’s productive economic resources are subject to collective ownership – that is, collective stewardship and (ideally sustainable) utilisation. In some cases, collective resources are local, in some cases they are national. And in many cases resource ownership/stewardship is global, meaning that each country has equity with respect to a population-weighted share of global public resources.

Economic democracy means that every ‘person of age’ – currently that age is 18 in most parts of the world – has an equal share of the public property rights associated with collectively owned public resources.

Economic democracy is as conceptually simple as political democracy. Yet the elites muddy the waters, just as they have done through most of human history with respect to the establishment of universal voting rights.

In this case democracy means that economic organisations – ‘firms’, for want of a better word – should be paying a ‘production tax’ (a mix of a rent and a service fee) for their use of collective resources. Firms should be paying that tax in proportion to their size. Thus, if Firm A is twice as big as Firm B, then Firm A – using twice as much public resource – should pay twice as much production tax. (The next thing to be aware of is that, by definition, production taxes are the same as income taxes; just another name. A change of language does, however, facilitate a new way of thinkingabout income tax.)

The second half of the argument for economic democracy is that every person ‘of age’ – as equal shareholders of our collective resources – should receive an equal stipend from production tax revenue.

Economic democracy can be represented by the bumper sticker slogan: ‘flat tax, universal income’.. In conventional language, it’s a built-in rights-based (ie non-targeted, non-bureaucratic) mechanism of ‘progressive taxation’. Depending on the rate of production tax and on the size of the universal stipend, the mechanism may be broadly neutral in its income distribution effect, or may be more ‘redistributive’.

As a simple way of conceiving this, we may think of public finance at the local council level. Imagine two proprietors in a town, and three equal properties in that town. Proprietor A owns two of the properties, and proprietor B owns the other property. Under the principle of economic democracy, A pays twice as much in property rates as B. But the benefits of the revenue raised are shared equally between all persons in that town, meaning that A and B get the same as each other.

Prospects for Economic Democracy

Possibly, in western societies our present position is much like the United Kingdom in the year 1801; meaning that the First Economic Reform Act may be about 30 years hence, say around the year 2050. Economic democracy is needed now, of course, just as political (and economic) democracy was desirable in 1801.

So the question is, would the extension of political democracy to sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds impede or enhance our journey towards economic democracy?

My fear is that this extension to the franchise would create a further impediment to the achievement of economic democracy. The first reason, already alluded to, is that this change would slightly entrench the power of the new elites; and that it is the elites who represent the main impediment to the achievement of democracy by lower socio-economic groups.

Part of the sway of the elites is their obsession with ‘sound’ (in practice, ‘miserly’) public finance. Thus, if the age of entitlement to a universal public stipend is 16 instead of 18, then such a provision will be more expensive, because there will be more people entitled to that universal payment.

Second, the discussion around economic democracy – a discussion easily derailed by our old and new elites – is that the matter of paying an adult stipend to school ‘children’ may become a substantial diversion from the main discussion.

Third, there is the problem that advocates of a Universal Basic Income are often their own worst enemy. Many argue for a universal gift (‘grant’, ‘transfer’) without appreciating that the achievement of this payment is a consequence of a production tax regime as outlined above. Economic democracy cannot be the one part without being the other part. Production taxes and universal stipends represent an alternative to graduated income taxes and targeted transfers; not some kind of ‘stick on’ ‘band aid’ to our present conception of income taxes. If advocates don’t get this right, they will be forever on the back foot when challenged on how to pay for what they present as a ‘gift’. (Equity dividends are not ‘gifts’.)

Further, many of the advocates of a Universal Basic Income see the ‘universal gift’ as a payment sufficient to create an alternative to labour, thereby enabling non-elites to choose to not work. This conception of a universal welfare state riles elites, and allows them to use the ‘labour supply’ issue as a ‘straw man argument’ against economic democracy. The important reality is that economic democracy enhances the functioning of the labour market, rather than stifling it. It should be that a universal stipend falls short of a stand-alone wage. The fact that participation in the labour market would not cost a person their stipend means that they are much better incentivised to participate in non-exploitative labour. In other words, a proper implementation of economic democracy creates the labour-supply elasticity – the ‘surge capacity’ if you like – that enables people to establish healthy work-life balances, and also enables people to adjust those balances (in favour of more paid work) in times of labour shortages.

I may be wrong in my concern that the inchoate economic democracy project might be derailed by the granting of full democratic rights to a younger cohort of people. Maybe, an extension to our education (probably in Years 9 and 10, given NCEA requirements for older students) towards “civics’ education” might lead to school students becoming much more aware of the ‘full gamut of democracy’ discourse; civics would need to be well-taught, and not massaged to conform with elite interests. If quality civics’ education is a co-requirement of extending the franchise to senior school pupils, and both teachers (who are not part of the social elite) and genuinely progressive students ‘grasp the nettle’, then a lower voting-age could smooth some of the many bumps in the road to a more complete democracy.

At the end of this essay are two academic references for my work on the theme of economic democracy.

Conclusion

The extension of democracy from political democracy – the right to vote in elections – towards economic democracy is critical if humanity is to have a future. Any proposals to extend democracy in ‘sideways’ directions must be evaluated in terms of whether these proposals inhibit or enhance the achievement of the more important reforms.

Just as if elite women had been given the vote before non-elite men then the achievement of universal suffrage may have been delayed (or otherwise compromised), so also an extension of voting rights which in practice will mainly benefit young elites may also endanger an already fraught path towards universal democracy. (Or it may not, if there can be genuine improvements in ‘democracy education’ as part of the reform.)

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

References:

Public Equity and Tax-Benefit Reform
https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/publications/public-equity-and-tax-benefit-reform
“economic democracy: one economic citizen, one dividend”

Symposium on The Basic Income Guarantee
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4024&context=jssw
Keith Rankin: Prospects for a Universal Basic Income in New Zealand

Political Roundup: The High barriers to lowering the voting age

Sixteen-year-olds aren’t about to get the right to vote anytime soon. Despite yesterday’s Supreme Court declaration that a voting age of 18 violates the Bill of Rights, there are still many barriers to get over before the voting age could be lowered.

In fact, as a best-case scenario, youth voting campaigners are now setting their sights on 2029 as the first general election for 16-year-olds to vote in, and perhaps 2025 as the first time that they might be able to vote in local government elections. But to get an extended franchise by these dates would require that the following very high barriers be overcome.

1: Public opposition to lowering the voting age

The problem for advocates of lowering the voting age to 16 is the vast majority of voters disagree. Poll after poll shows that about three-quarters of the public is not yet convinced that it’s a good idea. The public has actually been more favourable to giving the vote to prisoners than they are to letting younger people vote.

A TVNZ Vote Compass poll in 2020 showed 70 per cent in favour of a voting age of 18 years, and 20 per cent favouring a lower age. Then a 1News Colmar Brunton poll showed a massive 85 per cent opposed lowering the voting age to 16. And Curia Research also polled on the question in 2020 and found 88 per cent favoured the status quo. A more recent Curia poll showed that 79 per cent opposed dropping the voting age. And back in August of this year, a Talbot Mills poll showed 66 per cent opposed, and only 28 per cent in favour.

It seems that those favouring change – largely those in political activism, journalism, and academia – are strongly at variance with wider concerns. The case for change simply hasn’t had the cut through yet, until it does, a change in the law is highly unlikely.

2: National and Act oppose lowering the voting age

The rightwing opposition parties are unequivocally against lowering the voting age. This means that when the Labour Government introduces legislation next year to lower the age to 16, it will fail. What’s more, it means that a future National-led government would be inclined to reverse any shift to a lower voting age.

Normally any significant changes to electoral law require some sort of cross-party consensus, and this just hasn’t yet been forged. Campaigners have focused more on judicial activism, which turns out to have achieved them a powerful win, but without actually convincing most of the political parties yesterday’s Supreme Court declaration becomes something of a moot win.

National and Act have the power to stymie any changes to the general election voting age because the Electoral Act is constitutionally entrenched, meaning a super-majority of 75 per cent is required to make changes in Parliament. Ninety MPs are required to vote in favour of such a change, which is not going to occur.

3: Labour Party caution

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has come out in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 years and has promised to introduce legislation in terms of general election voting next year, as the Government’s answer to the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, she has made the call safe in the knowledge that such legislation won’t be consequential, because it won’t be passed.

Cynics might see it as a smart move by Ardern. It ticks off a legal requirement to respond to the Supreme Court ruling, and keeps her onside with progressives who favour a reduced voting age, but at the same time it avoids actually changing the law and alienating the three-quarters of the public opposed to 16-year-olds voting. Quite simply, Labour can rely on National and Act to save them from achieving what they possibly don’t really want to win – an unpopular lowering of the vote.

The problem for Labour will be the question of the voting age for local government elections. This is now where attention is likely to shift. This is because the Local Government Act isn’t constitutionally entrenched, which means that only a simple majority in Parliament is needed to lower the voting age to 16. The Government can’t just rely on National and Act to block this change.

The pressure will therefore be on the Government to reform the Local Government Act immediately. Labour has no excuses not to do so and it will therefore be a real test of Ardern’s principles.

Pressure to reform the Local Government Act’s voting age has also been increased by the review that the Government itself commissioned. The recent Future of Local Government report also recommended a voting age of 16 years for local elections, making it more difficult for Labour not to progress this.

The argument of reformers is now that local elections could be a “trial” for a lower voting age. Or, put another way, by introducing a lower voting age in this less important level of government, it would be a good way for the public to get used to the idea, with the hope that it would lead the way to the public supporting a lower voting age for general elections too.

But is Labour too cautious to make this change? It’s likely to stymie this by trying to keep the voting age for both general and local elections bound up together. The Government might even kick for touch by arguing that it wants to hear back from the Independent Review of Electoral Law before making any decisions – who are not due to report until after next year’s election. This would effectively make the change too late to implement until much later elections.

The general convention – which Jacinda Ardern reiterated yesterday – is for the implementation of significant electoral law changes to only take place for the election after the next one. This would mean that even if the Electoral Law was changed in 2024 to allow 16-year-olds to vote, this wouldn’t occur until the 2029 general election.

4: The Appearance of politician self-interest

Much of the debate about the voting age is likely to be blocked due to apparent political self-interest. Quite simply, the age level for voting has a large impact on the support levels of the various political parties.

There is a general consensus that younger people vote in higher proportions for the parties of the left. This is why one of the Supreme Court judges, Stephen Kos, gave a dissenting opinion yesterday, saying that “Altering voter age is not a neutral political action”, and “Whichever direction it goes in is likely to benefit some parties disproportionately”.

This means that National and Act’s opposition to a voting age is partly driven by the desire to protect their own levels of support. Act leader David Seymour expressed this yesterday, saying: “We don’t want 120,000 more voters who pay no tax voting for lots more spending”.

Conversely, Labour and the Greens could be accused of wanting to lower the voting age for their own advantage. Stuff political editor Luke Malpass explains today that “most of the political upside would go to Labour or the Greens, meaning that a Labour or Labour/Greens Government could look pretty self-interested in making any such change. That’s because those younger voters tend to split 2:1 to the left (either Labour or the Greens)”.

Malpass calculates that lowering the voting age to 16 could result in 80,000 more votes (a 2.7 per cent increase), which “could result in an extra seat for the centre-left. In an MMP environment where elections can be close-run, this would amount to a small – but not insignificant – realignment of the electoral board in favour of the political left.”

Such motivations for lowering the voting age are likely to become more apparent in any developing public debate about reform. New Zealanders have been shown to use “fairness” as a clear criteria in approaching issues such as electoral reform, and so on this subject they might be very inclined to also regard the lowering of the voting age with suspicion – leaving reform to the distant future.

Further reading on the voting age

VOTING AGE
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Change to local body voting age possible – even likely (paywalled)
Michael Neilson (Herald): Parliament to vote on lowering voting age from 18 to 16, could see ‘differential’ system for local and general elections
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Which parties would a voting age lowered to 16 likely favour in Parliament?
Richard Harman (Politik): Supreme Court v Parliament (paywalled)
Liam Hehir: The disappointing but not surprising Supreme Court decision (paywalled)
David Farrar: Hehir on the Supreme Court and the voting age
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Lowering voting age to 16 likely to fail in Parliament
River LIn (1News): Luxon calls on voting age to remain at 18
Brent Edwards (NBR): Opposition unimpressed with Supreme Court decision on voting age (paywalled)
RNZ: Voting age 16 law to be drafted requiring three quarters of MPs to pass – Ardern
Tess McClure (Guardian): Ardern promises bill to lower voting age to 16 in New Zealand after discrimination ruling
Michael Neilson (Herald): Parliament to consider lowering voting age to 16 after Supreme Court rules ‘inconsistent’ with Bill of Rights
RNZ: Supreme Court rules in favour of ‘Make It 16’ to lower voting age
Stuff: Door for voting age change open after backers score win in ‘uphill battle’
Will Trafford (Whakaata Māori): Voting age should be lowered to 16 – Supreme Court
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): The voting age: Keep it 18 or make it 16?

Other items of interest and importance today

PARLIAMENT
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Election 2023: a minor (party) flirtation (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Christopher Luxon not ruling out NZ First coalition after Winston Peters rules out Labour
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Luxon not ruling out post-election deal with NZ First
Newshub: Christopher Luxon won’t rule out NZ First coalition after Winston Peters says no to current Labour Party
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): For the first time ever Winston Peters has chosen a side before election day
Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Winston’s risky Labour call
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): If ACT rules Winston out, Luxon and NZ First will be snookered
Phil Pennington (RNZ): The ‘big maybe’ over Māori seats in Parliament due to census undercount
Will Trafford (Whakaata Māori): Census undercount could have shortchanged Māori seats – Waititi
Jonah Franke (Stuff): By-election? What by-election? Voter indifference as battle for Hamilton West heats up

HATE SPEECH REFORMS
Chris Trotter (Interest): In spite of Labour’s back-down on ‘Hate Speech’, the debate looks set to rage on through election year
Arran Hunt (Heald): Will hate speech laws turn NZ into another Iran? (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): How to save Labour from their Religious Hate Speech Law minefield
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Hate speech change: What it means and why it matters
Jamie Enosr (Newshub): Government’s hate speech change explained: How different is it to proposals, will it be unlawful to insult someone’s religion
David Harvey: Eroding Freedom of Expression

HOUSING
Seni Iasona (Newshub): Grant Robertson says 1000 fewer people in emergency housing shows Govt ‘making progress’ amid desperate plea from Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell
Michael Neilson (Herald): Government to make Healthy Homes extension announcement for Kāinga Ora and private landlords
1News: Govt’s possible healthy homes deadline extension ‘a slap in the face’
Giles Dexter (1News): Healthy Homes deadline extension under ‘active consideration’
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Warning building boom could see homes built in ‘terrible places’
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Farewell to home ownership: Interest rate hike forces borrowers to reconsider plans
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): Recap: Frustration, elation in the race for a rental
Greg Ninness (Interest): Median rent up $40 a week nationally in September year but almost flat in Auckland
RNZ: Iwi file Treaty claim over proposed Hamilton housing project

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): Volodymyr Zelensky invited to address New Zealand Parliament
RNZ: Defence Minister Peeni Henare to discuss funding weapons for Ukraine with Cabinet colleagues
Mei Heron (1News): What Peeni Henare likely discussed with Ukraine defence minister
Stefan Dimitrof (Whakaata Māori): Defence minister reaffirms New Zealand’s support of Ukraine
1News: Mahuta announces new sanctions against Putin’s daughters
Stephen Hoadley (Newsroom): Five summits reaffirm global cooperation
RNZ: Jacinda Ardern talked to Xi Jinping on human rights, Pacific development, Robertson says

ENVIRONMENT
Simon Wilson (Herald): National Party’s approach to climate-change policy is a massive failure for farmers (paywalled)
Rachael Kelly (Stuff): Climate Change Commission staff will meet with Groundswell NZ
Henry McMullan (1News): East Coast communities concerned about farmland sell-offs
Rod Oram (Newsroom): COP 27 ends with historic win and abysmal fail
RNZ: COP27 was ‘bitter, divisive, chaotic’, climate change expert says
Herald Editorial: Climate conference results a mixed blessing (paywalled)
Stefan Dimitrof (Whakaata Māori): Microplastics found in breast milk highlights importance of Global Plastics Treaty
David Williams (Newsroom): Mackenzie protection deal disarmed
Hauraki Coromandel Post: National MP Scott Simpson attends UN Climate Change Conference

HEALTH, DISABILITY
Emma Vitz and Shanti Mathias (Spinoff): The rising costs of outsourced healthcare
Rob Campbell (BusinessDesk): We need to centralise health to localise it (paywalled)
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): Health minister asks for patience as GPs demand changes to ‘soul-destroying’ conditions
1News: GPs say practice wait times becoming ‘dangerous’
Kristie Boland (Stuff): UK nurses turn to hospo jobs after waiting 8 months for NZ work approval
Louise Ternouth (RNZ): Disability sector facing critical staffing crisis and calling for more carers
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Covid cases are rising – will Govt intervene or are we on our own?
RNZ: Covid-19 update: 24,068 new cases, 40 deaths and 344 in hospital reported in past week
Chris Ford (RNZ): Opinion: Let’s go no further with voluntary euthanasia
Zoe Madden-Smith (Re: News): New over-the-phone abortion service getting 100 bookings a week

BUSINESS, EMPLOYMENT
Kaysha Brownlie (Newshub): National Party reiterates plans to repeal Fair Pay Agreement law
Jane Nixon (1News): Bill to address supermarket duopoly set to pass in 2023
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Tiwai Point aluminium smelter set to stay open ‘long term’, says broker
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Tiwai power deal likely to be settled (paywalled)
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Give mountain a chance to recover, say Ruapehu iwi
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Small retailers ditch insurance over rising costs

EDUCATION
Lee Kenny (Stuff): Eight $200k-a-year executives wanted at Te Pūkenga, despite need to cut $35m from budget
Jimmy Ellingham (RNZ): Massey vice-chancellor’s 18% pay jump not a pay increase, Public Services Commission says
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Christopher Luxon takes aim at parents, ‘culture of excuses’ for truancy crisis, but Jacinda Ardern fires back

RMA, Infrastructure
David Parker (Herald): Making resource management faster, cheaper and better (paywalled)
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Infrastructure: Three Waters ‘the right thing to do’ – Grant Robertson (paywalled)
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Trentham Racecourse on track for 850 new homes
Graham Skellern (Herald): Infrastructure: Record pipeline of road and rail projects, Michael Wood says Auckland harbour crossing critical (paywalled)
Simon Bridges (Herald): Infrastructure: 5 ways to fix Auckland’s transport problems (paywalled)
Reuben Tucker (Herald): Infrastructure: A Lodestone for transformation (paywalled)

TRANSPORT
Anne Gibson (Herald): Experts ponder: is this what might be planned for $15b second Waitematā Harbour crossing? (paywalled)
Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk): Michael Wood responds to Christchurch transport request (paywalled)
John MacDonald (Newstalk ZB): End of the road for Waka Kotahi ads?
1News: 6 road deaths over weekend could have been prevented – police

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONS, POLICE
Dave Armstrong (Stuff): A policy that hits youth offenders where it hurts
Duncan Garner (NBR): If law is not working, why can’t we get tough? (paywalled)
Sam Sherwood (Herald): Police officers failed to declare conflicts of interest while involved in international procurement process
David Farrar: Some dismal stats on prisoner literacy and numeracy programmes

BLACK FERNS TO BE CELEBRATED AT PARLIAMENT
Mana Wikaire-Lewis (Whakaata Māori): Official celebrations for Black Ferns on Parliament’s lawn in December
RNZ: Black Ferns World Cup win to be celebrated in Parliament
1News: World Cup-winning Black Ferns to be celebrated at Parliament

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Todd Niall (Stuff): Is Auckland Council’s next budget really the fiscal apocalypse?
RNZ: Tāmati Coffey voted off Rotorua Trust

OTHER
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Identity Check online system pilot launched despite gaps over privacy, rights
Nick Truebridge (Newshub): Charity says hungry and struggling elderly New Zealanders account for 80 pct of calls
Herewini Waikato (Whakaata Māori): National iwi hui wants funding and resources to take care of whānau
Sharon Brettkelly (RNZ): NZ’s prehistoric past at risk of crumbling away
Gavin Ellis: NZME reaches a milestone some thought impossible
Gerhard Uys (Stuff): Pig farmers concerned banks won’t finance expensive upgrades for new animal welfare standards

Political Roundup: Momentum growing to reform lobbying laws

This week global anti-corruption agency Transparency International released a report on lobbying, which described New Zealand’s lack of regulation as “glaring”.

Transparency International New Zealand has developed an international comparison of New Zealand’s lobbying regulations so that MPs here can decide whether to reform this sector. Currently, a group of MPs who are members of the Global Organisation for Parliamentarians Against Corruption, are reportedly weighing up the pros and cons of regulating lobbying in New Zealand.

Transparency International compared New Zealand’s lobbying rules with ten other similar countries, including the US and Canada, and found that New Zealand is at the unregulated end of the spectrum. In contrast, US lobbyists can face prison sentences of up to five years for the activities that are carried out in New Zealand.

The report looked at the seven areas of lobbying regulation that typically occur and found that New Zealand only had two of these: the publishing of Government Ministers’ diaries and MPs’ personal, financial, and business interests. The anti-corruption report says that “the absence of independent oversight of, and personal gains from lobbying in New Zealand is glaring.”

Even lobbyists see that something is wrong

With Transparency International joining the voices highlighting the way that lobbyists have carte blanche ability to assist vested interests and corporates to get their way in New Zealand, will there now be a stronger chance of reform of corporate lobbying?

Revelations that former Cabinet Minister Kris Faafoi recently moved almost straight from the highest levels of government to be a lobbyist highlighted the lack of rules. And Transparency International’s report shows that New Zealand is an outlier in not having any enforced “cooling off” period for politicians before they move into roles with conflicts of interest.

This has become embarrassing even for those working in the lobbying industry. Former journalist Jonathan Hill wrote last month about his own experiences in the area, saying a “stand-down” period for ministers and their staff before they move into lobbying is necessary, and such a rule would help improve public confidence in the industry.

Hill says the industry has been growing very quickly recently, “and there are large sums to be made in it”, but it’s made him feel “uneasy”. Hill writes: “My personal view is that lobbying – or government relations (GR) as it is termed – is a bit of a fraudulent industry.” He goes on to explain how easy it is to lobby politicians in New Zealand.

The fact that political insiders can come into lobbying with no regulation of their conflicts of interests clearly needs attention according to Hill. He points out: “The private sector has restraint of trade, gardening leave and the principle of continuous disclosure to prevent trading on inside information. But our democracy has nothing.”

Hill also suggests that the media is enabling the lucrative lobbying model: “Media should stop using lobbyists as political commentators. This has become common, for no good reason, and serves only to raise the profile of the lobbyist. That’s why they do it.”

Hill isn’t the only one involved in lobbying with doubts about the lack of controls on conflicts of interest. Lobbyist Holly Bennett, who runs the government relations firm Awhi, told RNZ last month that she was able to go straight from working as a ministerial and policy adviser in Parliament to lobbying MPs five years ago. She bluntly states: “I think it’s entirely inappropriate. I shouldn’t have been able to do that.”

Bennett is arguing that the lobbying industry should now proactively set the rules for themselves, arguing in favour of “a code of conduct; a register; and the establishment of an industry regulatory body, similar to the Media Council.”

Politicians arguing over lobbying reform

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is under pressure to do something about the lack of lobbying regulation, especially in light of the Faafoi scandal. Last month she faced strong questions from Guyon Espiner on Morning Report about why Faafoi should be allowed to take insider information from his role as a Cabinet Minister to help private businesses.

Ardern’s response to this was that regulation of ministers becoming lobbyists was unnecessary because: “Every New Zealander knows our intentions and policy from our manifesto”. Espiner was incredulous: “Come on. Are you really making a comparison between a member of the public and a cabinet minister?”

Rightwing political commentator David Farrar responded to Ardern’s argument saying: “Is the Prime Minister really suggesting that a member of her Cabinet knows no more about what the Government will do than a member of the public? It’s ludicrous and insulting to our intelligence. The only way this could not be misinformation is if the Cabinet doesn’t actually discuss policies or legislation when they meet.”

Farrar, who claims to know most lobbyists in New Zealand, says that the information that comes to Ministers from sitting around the Cabinet and ministerial tables is invaluable to corporate clients: “Cabinet debates and decides on every major piece of government legislation. They decide on what options to proceed with, and when to backtrack (as with KiwiSaver Funds GST). They debate pros and cons in great detail. At Cabinet Committees they receive detailed advice from officials. And within their own portfolios Minister receive the most valuable info of all – oral briefings. This is the stuff so sensitive that it is never put in writing so it can’t be discovered under the OIA.”

Farrar uses the example of insider information that Ministers get on an array of commercial decisions: “There is also great commercial impact from decisions. They can decide on share sales, on regulatory regimes, on proposed taxes. The criteria for being a default KiwiSaver fund can be worth a billion dollars to a KiwiSaver fund manager.”

Former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne has joined the chorus of those demanding reform in this area, labelling it “urgent”. He explains that “the adequacy of the rules regarding conflicts of interest for ministers and former ministers” has arisen out of the tradition in Parliament that politicians should be self-regulating: “When it comes to conflicts of interest, MPs have been largely left to manage them themselves.”

Dunne argues that the “time has surely come to formalise general conflict of interest rules for all MPs, and for the Cabinet Manual to address the specific issues raised by the Faafoi case.” He calls for “the Cabinet Office, the Speaker and the Standing Orders Committee to prioritise over the next few months updating the rules and practices regarding managing conflicts of interests for ministers and MPs.”

Perhaps Jacinda Ardern needs to talk to Labour’s last prime minister about lobbying reform. Helen Clark has now entered the debate, tweeting to Justice Minister Kiri Allan to point out that Transparency International “recommends 2 years” of a “cooling off period for political insiders after leaving taxpayer-funded positions before becoming lobbyists”.

An array of voices from across the political spectrum, including a former Labour prime minister, are now calling for reform on how vested interests can trade on inside information and connections. Will the Labour Government rise to the occasion?

Other items of interest and importance today

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Dave Armstrong (Stuff): Don’t mess with NZ – if that’s OK with everyone
Thomas Manch (Stuff): A day of pomp and pageantry in Vietnam, as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern shakes communist leaders’ hands
Claire Trevett (Herald): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s fruitful day talking trade, China and fruit with Vietnam’s highest-ranked leaders
Jo Moir (Newsroom): From elbowing into summits to Hanoi garden tours
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Ardern arrives in Vietnam to sell brand New Zealand
Claire Trevett (Herald): PM Jacinda Ardern arrives in Vietnam for business charm offensive and political meetings
Claire Trevett (Herald): PM Jacinda Ardern at the East Asia Summit: A call to do more in Myanmar, flags concern about China
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern, world leaders leave Southeast Asia summit without achieving much resolution
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): New Zealand extends Defence Force deployment in UK training Ukrainian soldiers
RNZ: Government extends Ukraine deployments, aid funding

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
Thomas Couglan (Herald): Resource Management Act replacement coming today
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Everybody hates the RMA, but will we be happy now? (paywalled)
Richard Harman (Politik): Parker’s big RMA changes (paywalled)

PARLIAMENT
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): The Facts don’t always tell the truth
Jonah Franke (Stuff): National candidate’s past support for ’50:50′ co-governance at odds with party line
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Te Pāti Māori slams government, opposition MPs for not backing voting reform bill
Duncan Garner (NBR): Is it possible to be all ‘Ruby Tui’ when NZ is going belly up? (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Waatea News): Labour and Te Pāti need to work together this election
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Beehive diaries: Which minister is in trouble for unparliamentary language
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Grappling with Governmental gobbledygook

POWER COMPANY PROFITS
1News: Calls for Govt intervention over excess power dividends
Herald: Big power companies delivering excess dividends in the billions, new study claims
No Right Turn: Privatisation screws the future

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT
RNZ: Inflation risks behaviour changes that make it harder to contain – economist
Liam Dann (Herald): Golden age for youth employment is being lost in storm of inflation fear (paywalled)
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): House price spikes of 2020/21 should’ve come as a warning (paywalled)
David Hargreaves (Interest): ANZ economists: It will take a ‘concerted effort’ to squash wage-price spiral dynamics ‘that are becoming ever more established’ in NZ
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Wave of sectors preparing for fair pay start date as unions gather momentum to launch bids
George Heagney (Stuff): Workers welcome lift in conditions due to Fair Pay Agreement
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Pay rise winners and losers: The industries where wages are soaring or stalling
Kiwiblog: Number of People On Benefits Over Time
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Hospital technicians fed up with less pay than admin staff
Adam Pearse (Herald): Nurse unions take Te Whatu Ora to court over pay equity settlement
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): House prices expected to drop another 10% by end of 2024, Westpac says
David Hargreaves (Interest): Wholesale interest rate prices may determine size of next RBNZ OCR hike, BNZ economists say
Michael Reddell: Reviewing monetary policy
Will Mace (NBR): Climate coalition or cartel collusion? (paywalled)

HOUSING
Anne Gibson (Herald): Kāinga Ora gets $2.75b extra borrowing capacity for state house building programme
Stephen Ward (Local Democracy Reporting): Housing Minister Megan Woods and Kāinga Ora concerned Hamilton heritage areas could curb intensification
Michael Neilson (Herald): Public housing waitlist drops for only second quarter since June 2015
Greg Ninness (Interest): The number of people on the waiting list for social housing has fallen for two consecutive quarters
Rachel Moore (Stuff): The deflating morning ritual of a school caretaker near emergency housing motels in central Hamilton
Kelly Makiha (Rotorua Daily Post): Fighting for Rotorua: Mayor calls for more police to deal with emergency housing crime
Kelvin McDonald (Te Ao – Māori News): Ngāti Whakaue celebrates new whānau homes

HEALTH
Murray Jones (BusinessDesk): Are we getting what we pay for in the health system?
Cécile Meier and Murray Jones (BusinessDesk): ‘When I got covid, all I got was two text messages’: Little on GPs
Jonty Dine (RNZ): Nearly half of NZers cannot afford dental care – new report
RNZ: Dental care: 40 percent New Zealanders can’t afford it – report
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Hundreds spending 24 hours in busy EDs: ‘Disaster waiting to happen’
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Bottle shops harder to open in rich areas – research
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Māori in rural New Zealand further from good healthcare – researcher
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Māori disproportionately impacted by drug overdoses – report
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Health inequities: Rōpū claimants meet on underfunding grievances with Crown
Kelvin McDonald (Te Ao –  Māori News): Wai 2575 claimants move step closer to resolving health underfunding grievances
Herald: ‘They are choosing to go to other places’: Overseas nurses applying for NZ work visas drops by 60 per cent

COVID-19
Herald Editorial: Three years of Covid, new study suggests caution (paywalled)
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Plan to restore MIQ if needed
Nikki Macdonald (Stuff): Covid-19 NZ: How to control a pandemic without a lockdown
RNZ: Cruise ship Covid-19 ‘no cause for alarm’

TRANSPORT
Simon Wilson (Herald): Why is a new harbour crossing back in the news? (paywalled)
Thomas Coughan (Herald): Bridge or tunnel? Government asks Aucklanders what they want for next crossing
Finn Blackwell (RNZ): New Auckland harbour crossing debate rolls on as government asks public for views
David Skipwith (Stuff): Aucklanders to have their say on harbour crossing options, including a tunnel
RNZ: Waka Kotahi’s $8b upgrade programme considers toll charges
1News: NZTA proposes sweeping state highway speed limit decreases
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): MPs and rail activists clash on protest tactics (paywalled)

THREE WATERS
Graham Adams (The Platform): Hey presto… Three Waters becomes Five Waters!
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Explainer: MPs propose fixes to Government’s controversial water reforms (paywalled)
Andrew Dickens (Newstalk ZB): Co-governance should be the least of your worries

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): Māori wards did not inspire voters: What next to boost democracy?
The Facts: Alpha-bias- surnames in the top 3 won >50% of elections*
Felix Desmarais (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua cycleway to be removed for car parks

EDUCATION
John Gerritsen (RNZ): Covid-19: Students embrace ‘bare minimum’ approach to learning after disrupted years
Alex Penk: Will today’s students still have the opportunity to learn critical thinking?
RNZ: Checkpoint: Nursing students call for paid placements – Shane Reti responds
Ella Henry (Spinoff): Busting the myths about mātauranga Māori

SPY AGENCIES, NATIONAL SECURITY
Chris Trotter: The “Us versus Them” worldview
Tom Peters: New Zealand national security briefing promotes war and censorship
RNZ: Spy agency uses ‘computer network exploitation’ to take digital information

ENVIRONMENT
Thomas Cranmer: ‘We made a National Park disappear’
Jeremy Wilkinson (Open Justice Reporting): Kiribati refugee claims climate change crisis prevents him from returning home
Mildred Armah (Stuff): Climate change a ‘fundamental’ threat to livelihood of Pacific people – report
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Māori get climate say after Shaw gaffes
Tom Powell (Stuff): Did the Government get agricultural emissions levy plan right?
Rod Oram (Newsroom): Climate summit clogged by indecision
Rod Oram (Newsroom): NZ absent on COP27 agriculture day
Gillian Blythe (Newsroom): Climate change threatens drinking water, crops, infrastructure – Water NZ
Will Harvie (Stuff): Cabinet to consider proposed refund scheme for bottles, cans before end of year
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Protestors pay $400 for bypass whenua; government says not for sale

MEDIA
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): The end of a golden era at TVNZ – and the mystery of what comes next
Gavin Ellis: Back to the future to train the next generation of journalists
Damien Venuto and Isaac Davison (Stuff): Strike action possible as Stuff and union grapple over pay (paywalled)

SPORT
Imogen Wells (Newshub): Newshub-Reid Research poll: Where New Zealanders stand on banning alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sport
Stuff: Acting PM says Black Ferns may not get a parade but ‘an event’ after World Cup win
James Perry (Te Ao – Māori News): Government mulls Black Ferns celebration
Martin Devlin (NBR): Can women’s rugby be financially sustainable? (paywalled)
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Has Fifa learned anything from its Qatar fiasco?

OTHER
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Productivity Commission Chairman Ganesh Nana argues that New Zealand needs a major reset of immigration policy
Sasha Borissenko (Herald): Legal aid pay rise a drop in the ocean (paywalled)
Waatea News: Judges challenged to fix bias in system
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Camera rollout an opportunity lost, says fishing industry (paywalled)
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Police investigate assaults on Auckland prisoners
Samuel Wat (RNZ): Cost of living troubles stretch animal shelters

Political Roundup: No confidence in dire local govt elections

The “No Confidence” vote in local body elections could be as high as 60 per cent by the end of this week. That’s essentially what it is when only 40 per cent of the public choose to vote, which is what is happening at the moment. In fact, voter turnout is trending lower, meaning New Zealand could be headed for a record low voter turnout (and hence a record no confidence vote in politicians).

The reality is clear: the vast majority of the public are not inspired by what’s on offer from candidates across the country and voters aren’t convinced that voting in local elections really matters.

Voter turnout was supposed to increase in 2022

This year’s extremely low voter turnout is occurring despite circumstances that should be driving increased public involvement. Firstly, there are a large number of very competitive mayoral elections taking place – in which the likely outcome is far from decided. In Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Invercargill, for instance, it’s not clear who will win, and a number of new mayors are likely to be elected. This situation normally drives up turnout.

In addition, there are a number of factors that many commentators and authorities believed would drive up participation:

• The new Māori wards in many elections were supposed to provide for better representation of an historically under-represented demographic
• There is increased media coverage of local elections and, in particular, a plethora of voices explaining the need for people to vote
• The Three Waters reforms have provided a contentious public issue for voters to vote for or against as candidates take a pro or anti Three Waters stance
• A much more demographically diverse range of candidates – women, Māori, young people, and so forth – standing was said to help boost turnout amongst sections of the public put off by so-called “pale, stale, and male” incumbents
• Local government authorities have produced huge publicity and advertising campaigns, normally incorporating te reo Māori and an emphasis on diversity, to get people enthused about democracy.

None of these factors appear to have had a significant impact in lifting voting so far. Perhaps some of these dynamics have actually had a counterintuitively negative impact.

Could it be that the low voter turnout reflects contentment?

Of course, there are plenty of explanations for the public choosing not to vote. Some politicians and commentators have been attempting to put a more positive spin on the declining voter turnout. Much of this looks like wishful thinking. They say the declining voter turnout simply reflects public satisfaction with the politicians and their local authorities. Voters are content to just let the politicians continue doing their good work without the scrutiny and evaluation of voting.

But there is absolutely no evidence to support the view that the low voter turnout reflects contentment. In fact, there is strong evidence throughout the country that the public’s unhappiness with councils has reached an all-time high.

Surveys carried out by local authorities show that dissatisfaction with individual councils is very strong this year. For example, in Wellington, when the public were asked this year about satisfaction with council decision-making, the number of those who are “satisfied” dropped to a new low of only 12 per cent, while those who said they are “dissatisfied” jumped to 52 per cent. Similarly, those who believe that the Council makes decisions that are in best interests of the city has plummeted from 50 per cent to just 17 per cent this year.

It seems that throughout the country there is a similar level of anger and disenchantment with local politicians which should dispel any rosy idea that lower voter turnout is in some way positive.

Those pushing the “contentment theory” of low voter turnout also have to grapple with the fact that non-voters are disproportionately made up of the poor and marginalised of society. Evidence shows it’s the wealthier demographics that vote in much larger numbers than others.

For example, suburb comparisons in the 2019 Rotorua Lakes Council elections showed that the higher turnouts were from residents from wealthier housing locations, and vice versa.

Overall in Rotorua the turnout was 45 per cent, but for the affluent suburbs the turnout rates were much higher, and for the lower socio-economic areas the voting rates were about a third of this.

For example, in Rotorua’s flash suburb of Springfield, 59 per cent voted, in leafy Lynmore it was 57 per cent, and wealthy Kaharoa had a turnout rate of 56 per cent.

However, the poorer suburbs had abysmal turnout rates. In disadvantaged Western Heights it was only 27 per cent, and in the poorest area of Fordlands voter turnout was an incredible 18 per cent.

This pattern was borne out by a 2015 Auckland Council study that showed significant variation in voter turnout according to socioeconomic status.

It goes to show just how much participation in elections is a function of socio-economics. And so, a discussion of voter turnout must involve an awareness that elections in New Zealand are primarily determined by wealth.

It seems that local government isn’t working for most people. And this is especially the case for the poor. Increasingly there is a feeling that local government – much like central government – has become dysfunctional and captured by vested interests and elites.

All around the world voter turnout has generally been on the decline over the last few decades, driven by waning trust in authorities and politics. And this is evident in the rise of populist nationalism and the increased peddling of conspiracy theories.

A 17 per cent turnout in amongst poorer communities speaks to something rotten in our democratic processes. Fixing this won’t involve superficial and mechanical changes to voting systems or just more public education. A much bigger examination of the failings of our political system is necessary, and this needs to include looking at wider societal problems.

Without big change, our elections will decline further in legitimacy. As today’s New Zealand Herald points out, the Prime Minister is being “asked this week to speculate on how low the turnout threshold should be for local elections to be considered valid”. She won’t answer this. But someone is going to have to engage very quickly.

What is clear is that blaming voters for being uninspired by the candidates and the system of local government is not the answer. The public – and especially poorer New Zealanders – will just keep essentially voting “No confidence” in larger and larger numbers until it’s impossible for this message to be ignored or misunderstood.

Further reading on Local Government Elections

Bernard Orsman (Herald): Local body elections: Christchurch leads voting turnout among the big cities; Wellington last
Herald Editorial: Who’s to blame when local elections fail to excite voters? (paywalled)
Brad Olsen (Infometrics): Chart of the month: Time for some local democracy
Adam Burns (RNZ): Local body elections: Late voters urged to cast special votes
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Local body elections: Christchurch leads voting turnout among the big cities; Wellington last
Felix Desmarais (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua voter turnout steady but voters urged to ‘make their vote count’
The Facts: Only 21% of votes returned with 5 days left + exclusive new polling
Sinead Gill (Stuff): Lorde ‘told off’ after breaking electoral rule
David Farrar: The Labour loyalty pledge
Michael Sergel (Herald): Five issues dividing Auckland election candidates
1News: Ardern throws support behind Collins’ Auckland mayoralty campaign
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Brown momentum vs Collins machine
No Right Turn: The “endorsement” you give when you want someone to lose
Dita De Boni (NBR): Wayne Brown’s good points flushed away by urinal comments (paywalled)
Katie Townshend (Stuff): Five things you may not realise your local council does
Stewart Sowman-Lund (Spinoff): Race briefing: Can the country’s youngest mayor make it two for two?

Other items of interest and importance today

JAMI-LEE ROSS CLEARED OF FRAUD CHARGES
Sam Hurley (Herald): Labour and National donations trial: Guilty and not guilty verdicts over political money
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Jami-Lee Ross not guilty in political donations case, businessmen found guilty
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Ex MP Jami-Lee Ross cleared of fraud charges

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
George Block (Herald): Former Cabinet minister Kris Faafoi to head new lobbying and PR firm (paywalled)
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Political donations case: Jami-Lee Ross, businessmen set to hear verdict
Stuff: Ex-minister Kris Faafoi is now a lobbyist and PR guy
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): New Roy Morgan Poll – Labour Crash
Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll (The Conversation): When is being Māori not enough? Why Māori politics are always personal
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): I can’t decide whether four year political terms are really what NZ needs
Duncan Garner (NBR): National has to offer tax cuts – but to who, how and when? (paywalled)
Waatea News: Davis apologises but ACT policy still racist
Matthew Hooton: Act’s terrible dilemma (paywalled)

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT
Gavin Ellis: Government media teams that breach the law
Elspeth McLean (ODT): Ombudsman ambitions killed off by lack of respect for OIA

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Covid bloodbath expected as Government opens books today
Richard Harman: Another shot into Labour’s re-election chances (paywalled)
RNZ: Tax rates a factor for attracting candidates for top jobs, Luxon says
Brooke van Velden (Herald): What Liz Truss-led economic turmoil in UK can teach NZ (paywalled)
Robert MacCulloch: National and Labour economic policy summed up in a few lines
Tim Hunter (NBR): Council calls in PwC to review Eke Panuku deals (paywalled)

HOUSING
Sam Olley (RNZ): Emergency housing: Government warned of human rights risks years ago, documents reveal
David Farrar: A 421 day waiting list for a state house for the most needy
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): Why I’d be happy to see more ghost homes
RNZ: Housing market still firmly in retreat – CoreLogic
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Timing the market: Is now the best time to buy a house or should you wait for prices to drop further? An expert weighs in
Anne Gibson (Herald): ‘One of worst times for NZ house values’: New CoreLogic data shows falls continue

HEALTH
Alexa Cook (Newshub): Government increases GP funding, but sector worries it won’t fix crippling doctor shortage
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Andrew Little announces GP pay bump and push to increase doctor numbers

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
David Fisher (Herald): New book on Five Eyes spying club explains NZ’s role in world’s largest intelligence network (paywalled)
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Solomon Islands foreign minister says his country will not ‘choose sides’
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Solomon Islands unhappy with indirect China references in draft agreement with Washington, insists it would not ‘choose sides’
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Nanaia Mahuta, Solomon Islands’ minister hold talks in ‘Rainbow Room’, despite island nation’s anti-same sex policies

MEDIA
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): No one screams like media dependent on NZ on Air money
Brigitte Morten (NBR): Kiwis’ trust in institutions is being tested (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Today FM vs ZB – has the experiment worked?
ODT Editorial: TVNZ plumbs the depths

OTHER
David Bromell (Newsroom): How to argue in a free and open society
Thomas Cranmer: Three Waters and the vexed question of ownership
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Human Rights Commission tries to stuff online hate Genie back into bottle while Jacinda threatens Big Sister
Katarina Williams and Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Teachers want ‘racist, discriminatory’ streaming system to be abolished in schools from 2030

Political Roundup: Labour’s fraught battle to retain the Māori vote

Labour’s poll results are trending down. Yesterday’s Curia poll put the party down two points to just 33 per cent, while National is up three points to 37 per cent. When it comes to next year’s election, a key constituency for Labour will be Māori voters, especially in the Māori seats which are facing a strong challenge from Te Pati Māori.

Yet Labour’s support amongst Māori also seems to be plummeting. A poll earlier in the year by Horizon Research for The Hui, showed Labour’s support had dropped from 54 per cent in 2020, to just 37 per cent this year. The seventeen-point drop was a sign, according to Te Pati Māori’s co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, that in Māoridom, “The red wave is well and truly over”. National’s Shane Reti also pronounced “the Māori love affair with Labour is well and truly over.”

Has Labour let down Māori?

When Labour won 50 per cent of the vote in 2020, with a historic majority in Parliament, there was a belief amongst commentators that Labour would now be able to deliver for their Māori constituency. There was a belief that this triumphant result, and winning back all the Māori electorates in 2017, was in part due to Māori voters trusting Labour to deliver on their promises of better housing, healthcare, and reduced economic inequality. Such a focus on lifting living standards was especially appealing to working class Māori.

Unfortunately, those results haven’t been delivered. Under Labour there continues to be a growing disparity between rich and poor, and poverty and inequality have been exacerbated. For example, the housing crisis Labour inherited from National, has now morphed into a “housing catastrophe”, and Labour seem largely uninterested in doing anything about this. On top of this, we now have a cost of living crisis, and wages are not keeping up with rising prices.

The powerful role of the Labour Māori caucus in government

One of the reasons that Māori might have believed Ardern’s Government would deliver in the areas that poor and working class Māori care about, is that the Māori caucus in Labour is the biggest ever. Commentators said that the fifteen Māori MPs in Government would have strong leverage over Ardern and her fellow ministers. What’s more, six out of the 20 Cabinet ministers are Māori – which is proportionally much greater than wider society.

Have the Māori MPs and ministers delivered? There is no doubt they have been highly influential. As leftwing commentator Martyn Bradbury says, “The Maori Caucus inside Labour are now the largest and most powerful faction” in the party. The Prime Minister and her colleagues have therefore not been able to ignore the demands and priorities of Labour’s Māori caucus.

In fact, some commentators paint a picture of Ardern as being held hostage to the agendas of the senior Maori leaders such as Nanaia Mahuta and Willie Jackson. Journalist Graham Adams, for example, has written about how Ardern doesn’t show any great enthusiasm for, or belief in, her Government’s controversial Three Waters reform programme, and as a very cautious and poll-driven leader, “would normally back away from any policy as widely disliked as Three Waters soon after the poll results arrived on her desk”.

Adams argues that the Māori caucus has pursued many of the most important and controversial reform agendas of the current Government – this “includes setting up a separate Māori Health Authority, easing the path to Māori wards, handing more power to iwi in the conservation estate, in local government, and the Resource Management Act”.

Have Labour’s Māori MPs focused on the right issues?

Generally, the Māori caucus in Labour has been focused on constitutional and cultural reforms. But are these the right ones? Unfortunately for Labour, the main concerns of Māori voters – especially those who are struggling – are more materialist, such as housing and employment.

Much of what the Labour Government has been delivering for Māori often looks more like symbolism and bureaucracy. And in many cases, it’s been about assisting more middle class Māori supporters, especially those in business. Hence last year Willie Jackson convinced his government to make 5 per cent of their $42 billion procurement budget available to Māori businesses.

This all raises the question of whether Labour’s Māori MPs have focused on the right issues. Or, perhaps the question is whether Labour has become too focused on more elite or middle class Māori concerns.

In a sense, the caucus is having to respond to the more radical Te Pati Māori, which is increasingly Tiriti-focused and wanting constitutional change, rather than concerned with traditional Labour issues. Labour MPs therefore have to follow that agenda too. They need to convince Māori constituencies that they’ve won some big concessions off the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

If not, then what have the Labour Māori MPs got to show to their voters when it comes to the next election? If they can’t show progress on housing, standards of living, improved healthcare etc, the hope surely is that they can at least point to advances in te reo, the school curriculum, more visible Māori in leadership and business, and so forth.

Will these be enough? Leftwing commentator Chris Trotter suggests not: “Creating Māori wards is not the same as creating jobs. Building support for profound constitutional change in Aotearoa-New Zealand is not the same as building houses.”

The changing power of Labour Māori caucus

This week the Herald’s Audrey Young has written an evaluation of the Māori Cabinet ministers, some of which is quite critical. For instance, she labels Kevin Davis “Pedestrian”, pointing out that he got “the new portfolio of Māori-Crown relations in the first term but has been almost invisible in promoting the Government’s overall strategy to the public.” Young also labels Peeni Henare as “Sheltered” in the Cabinet, saying he “has not been tested politically and shows no signs of boldness.”

Probably the most critical is her evaluation of Nanaia Mahuta, who Young labels “Distracted”. Young says Mahuta is “distracted by Three Waters reforms and a series of stories about public sector contracts awarded to her consultant husband. They have reached such a pitch that she herself should refer the matter to the Public Service Commission or Auditor-General to get an independent opinion and draw a line under it.”

Willie Jackson and Kiri Allan receive more positive evaluations – the latter is said to be a “potential deputy Labour leader” and a “firm favourite of Jacinda Ardern.”

But it’s Jackson that is acknowledged as the real leader of the Māori caucus in Labour – Young reports that: “Insiders confirm appearances – that the most active and influential member of the caucus is Cabinet minister Willie Jackson.” She adds that he’s “the only one actively promoting and defending co-governance.” And elsewhere, Young has explained that Jackson is “still the go-to guy for hands-on co-ordination within the Māori caucus and within Māoridom peak groups and iwi leaders.”

The Māori Labour MPs need to keep their government delivering

With Labour’s post-Covid popularity steadily on the decline, there are many on the left who want Labour to revert to more traditional and popular leftwing policies, and jettison the strong pursuit of cultural and constitutional change.

For example, the Three Waters reform programme has become an albatross around the Government’s neck, which few are willing to defend. It will continue to cost Labour popular support. But should Labour pull back on the more controversial parts of the programme, such as giving half of the control over water assets to iwi?

The problem is that to do so would be to give Te Pati Māori a huge stick to beat Labour with. It could seriously jeopardise Labour’s hold on their Māori seats next year. Likewise, pulling back on the Government’s co-governance agenda would create havoc for the Māori caucus. A Māori caucus rebellion in Labour would be guaranteed.

Therefore, Ardern is in something of a bind. She will have to continue juggling the demands of the powerful Māori caucus while also being aware that some of that agenda might be making her government unpopular.

But Ardern would be wise to realise that when it comes down to it, most Māori voters are quite similar to non-Māori voters in caring more about the delivery of the basics – especially an improved standard of living. In this regard, Ardern should take note that the Horizon poll of Māori voters earlier this year pointed to why Māori voters were leaving Labour: “As inflation begins to bite, 72 percent say the cost of living is the main issue they will vote on, followed by housing and health.”

Other items of interest and importance today

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
Jason Walls (Herald): Government paid private Three Waters consultants $16 million last financial year but DIA defends spending
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): Labour has just 44 days before election for its legislative agenda
Jane Clifton (Listener/Herald): How the Government missed its chance to take on the big Aussie banks (paywalled)
Claire Trevett (Herald): National confirms Chris Bishop as campaign chair, Covid-19 role gone
Benedict Collins (1News): Labour’s Lorck ‘doing my best’ to improve behaviour after new claims

MONARCHY
Josie Pagani (Stuff): Don’t jump the gun on the monarchy. There’s a Treaty to consider
Sarah Jocelyn and Professor Andrew Geddis (Newsroom): How NZ could become a republic
Adam Pearse (Herald): Māori leader Esther Jessop calls taihoa on republic debate as royals grieve
Newshub: Queen Elizabeth’s death: Why NZ’s public holiday isn’t on same day as UK funeral
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to meet King Charles, Prince William
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk): I can’t see that Marama Davidson did anything wrong

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland mayoralty: Viv Beck withdraws from race
Tony Wall and Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland mayoralty: The hints Viv Beck left about withdrawing from the race
Matthew Hooton (Herald): Super City’s two-horse race between Wayne Brown, Efeso Collins (paywalled)
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Advantage, Collins but it’s far from match point
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland mayoralty: Efeso Collins plans to ditch his car one day a week – he wants others to do the same
Glenn McLean (Stuff): Facts not being delivered in New Plymouth mayoral race

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Felix Walton (RNZ): Rising cost of groceries could drive unhealthy choices
Richard Harman: Robertson has plenty to worry about (paywalled)
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): GDP figures hit the sweet spot for Grant Robertson politically (paywalled)
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): Which parts of the NZ economy are out of whack
Anne Gibson (Herald): Horrific construction fatalities and injuries: But is building really the riskiest job? (paywalled)
Nina Santos (Herald): Myth-busting gender and ethnic pay gap excuses (paywalled)
Herald Editorial: We’re paying more for airfares, time to boost passenger rights (paywalled)

HOUSING
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): Auckland’s housing affordability by the numbers: A story of haves and have-nots
Felix Desmarais (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua on a ‘precipice’ as mayor meets with ministers about motels
RNZ: Majority of suburbs in main centres experience slide in property values
Newshub: Aotearoa’s property values continue to fall, 80 percent of suburbs record a drop in value

COVID
Matthew Brockett (Bloomberg): Jacinda Ardern’s Feted Covid Response Could Yet Be Her Undoing
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): New Zealand is now as it was – but nothing is the same
David Welch and Michael Plank (The Conversation): With most mandatory public health measures gone, is NZ well prepared for the next COVID wave?
David Seymour (Herald): Why we need an independent Covid response inquiry (paywalled)
Mike Hosking (Newstalk): Time to get on with a Covid inquiry

HEALTH
Lillian Hanly (1News): Little met with silent protest over nurses’ pay equity agreement
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Andrew Little gets applause – for the wrong reason – at nurses’ conference
Emma Houpt (Herald): Hundreds of Bay of Plenty children waiting for dental surgery
Emma Houpt (Herald): Bay of Plenty’s Trinity Koha Dental Clinic provides more than $600k worth of free dental care

EDUCATION
Lee Kenny (Stuff): Fresh blow to mega polytech Te Pūkenga as finance boss resigns months into the job
Herald: Government announces $44m to increase teacher numbers, support students affected by Covid
Caroline Williams (Stuff): Massey University lecturer told Māori students they ‘don’t look Māori’

CLIMATE
RNZ: Rate of sea-level rise around New Zealand doubles in the past 60 years – Stats NZ
Rob Stock (Stuff): Is New Zealand’s plan for ‘green’ government bonds just smoke and mirrors?
Brent Edwards (NBR): Concerns about the Government’s emissions reduction plan (paywalled)
Paul Callister and Robert McLachlan (The Conversation): NZ has announced a biofuel mandate to cut transport emissions, but that could be the worst option for the climate
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Climate crisis: The monotony of the extremes
Tim Hunter (NBR): Biomass: the burning question (paywalled)

TE REO MĀORI
Damien Venuto (Herald): Is it time to change the name of New Zealand to Aotearoa?
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Has Te reo elitism become Professional Managerial Class brownwash?
Joris De Bres (Spinoff): The ‘McMāori’ saga and the business of te reo
Rawiri Waititi (Herald): From a kohanga sandpit to playing in New Zealand’s biggest playground

OTHER
RNZ: Treasury rips into Oranga Tamariki for loose fiscal controls
RNZ: New Zealand announces new ambassador to China
Karl du Fresne: Ken Douglas: one of the last of the old school

Political Roundup: Time to take political donations law seriously

There is no corruption in New Zealand. At least that’s what authorities want the public to believe. For decades now our system of political finance regulation has been portrayed as highly rigorous, ensuring our politicians cannot be bought.

Unfortunately, that’s just not true. Although politicians and officials have claimed tight rules around transparency of large donations prevent the selling of policy by politicians, it’s really just resulted in a false sense of security.

Scholars of political finance such as myself have been unconvinced that the system works. As I’ve pointed out, often donation loopholes exist but are undiscovered by authorities. In this regard, we’ve ended up with a worst-case scenario in which the rules to prevent corruption are ineffective, yet the public is encouraged to have illusions in the rules working.

The New Zealand First Foundation trial has exposed a giant loophole

Thankfully, in 2022 we now have two landmark High Court trials proving that our laws are an ass and need significant reform.

The first trial, involving large donations intended for the New Zealand First party, showed how donation disclosure rules were easily avoided by having a system set up where cheques are deposited into a bank account of a separate legal entity called the New Zealand First Foundation. In this case, the judge ruled that these large gifts – about $750,000 in total – did not qualify as “political donations” under the Electoral Act. Therefore, the donors weren’t disclosed, and although the Serious Fraud Office viewed this as a violation under the Crimes Act, the judge acquitted the defendants.

The public doesn’t know how much this technicality has been used by other political parties to evade disclosing their links to wealthy donors. This particular trial only came about due to a whistleblower inside New Zealand First. Otherwise, authorities had no idea about the donations and the use of the dodgy fundraising mechanism.

The Government is now proposing that the loophole can be easily fixed by adding two small amendments to the current Electoral Amendment Bill, which is currently being considered by select committee, and is intended to be passed into law by the end of the year. Effectively the Minister of Justice, Kiri Allen, is proposing to make an “amendment to an amendment”, which she says will be “urgent” and “quite succinct”.

Allan states that two changes are necessary – the creation of a new more expansive definition of what a “party donation” is, and making it a crime for those receiving party donations not to inform the party secretary who is responsible for disclosing large donations.

The problem, of course, is that this is piggybacking on an existing piece of legislation going through Parliament that is designed to deal with very different problems with the Electoral Act. And the changes being made in this existing amendment bill – particularly lowering threshold levels for disclosure of donations – are strongly opposed by the National and Act parties. This means the crucial closing of the “NZ First Foundation loophole” is being inserted into a contentious bill that won’t have cross-party consensus. So although all the parliamentary want to close the loophole, not all of them will be able to vote for it.

This is a muddled and dangerous way to carry out political donations reform. It would be much wiser to make the changes to the loophole in an entirely separate bill that isn’t muddied by partisan disagreement. While it might be convenient for the Government to piggyback the changes onto the existing bill, taking a shortcut on such a crucial and complicated loophole might actually cause more problems.

As Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern correctly said last week, there is a risk that by rushing the loophole fix through quickly there might be unintended consequences. Hence, this appears to simply be another case where the Government would be wise to heed the aphorism of: “legislate in haste, repent in leisure”.

The Labour and National donations trial is exposing more loopholes

A second trial, currently taking place in the Auckland High Court, concerns large donations to the Labour and National parties that were also hidden. We are hearing that, as with the NZ First trial, these large donations were easily disguised under the current law and were undisclosed.

As with the NZ First Foundation, the prosecution is arguing that people inside the Labour and National parties helped manipulate the rules to keep large donations secret from the public. We now know one wealthy individual is accused of giving both Labour and National very large donations, with the SFO alleging these were broken down into smaller amounts given by various “sham donors” so that they wouldn’t be disclosed to the public. The prosecution alleges that Labour and National MPs had lobbied for the wealthy donor to receive a royal honour and this was the motivation for hiding the donor’s identity from the public.

Also in common with the NZ First trial, the dodgy donations to both Labour and National only came to light via whistleblowers. In National’s case, it was due to an unusual meltdown in the usually tightly-controlled party, when MP Jami-Lee Ross fell out with leader Simon Bridges. It then turned out that the same donor had made large donations to Labour in secret.

In the case of the Labour and National donations, the loophole is simply that our donations regime is based on a “high trust model” in which authorities expect parties and donors to follow the rules. There is no policing of these rules as no authority is charged or resourced to monitor what is happening. Instead, the public only learns about dodgy donations when there is a whistleblower. One of the basic foundations of our democracy, that political power isn’t for sale, should not have to rely on the development of a guilty conscience or a desire for revenge inside a political party.

Governments continue to play catchup with piecemeal and poor reform

Governments often regard the reform of political finance as simplistic when in reality it’s always much more complicated than they expect. Furthermore, wealthy donors and party fundraisers will always try to find ways to get around the rules. Academic scholars of this regulation compare the money given to politicians by the wealthy to underground spring water trying to get to the surface – we can try to block secret money from getting through, but there is a strong hydraulic nature that pushes it through, and once authorities dam up one outlet, the water finds its way up through another leak. The problem should not be underestimated.

Hence there is no place for complacency about money and politics. And yet that’s been the official setting for many years. And authorities often come up with quick fixes to try and stem the latest discovered loophole. But inevitably there are then unintended consequences arising from those simplistic fixes, sometimes making matters worse or driving the political money through a different loophole.

The ultimate example of this was the Helen Clark Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Act 2008, which caused more problems than it sought to fix. Labour themselves voted to repeal the hated legislation, which had been rushed into power without proper scrutiny or care.

Governments continue to play catchup with political finance reform, and are obviously not motivated to have a proper investigation into how to run the system of money and politics – it might threaten their own interests. Working groups are put together, normally without proper scope to examine the problems, and fixes are inevitably put forward that avoid some of the big problems and the public is yet again assuaged that there is no corruption in New Zealand.

Government using a self-serving reform process

There’s also the problem that fixes are often also used to either improve the financial position of the parties in power, or to hurt opponents. Furthermore, reform can sometimes involve a cartel of parties in Parliament who increase their own financial advantage with new rules that also seek to disadvantage fledgling or outside parties trying to break into Parliament.

Self-interest is therefore the major flaw to watch for in the design of donations reform. Already, the National and Act parties have argued that Labour’s latest proposals to lower the threshold for disclosure of donations are designed to hurt opponents and favour the incumbents themselves. Of course, this argument probably also reflects the self-interest of the parties of the right.

Nonetheless, it’s never a good look in this area of reform for changes to donation rules to look like it’s being a partisan football game. This reduces public confidence in the changes, and also threatens to make them less enduring. When such laws are made on a partisan basis, and often without much consultation with the public or opponents it discourages consensus – which is highly desirable when working on the rules of democracy.

We need donations reform processes that are more removed from self-interested politicians. This is a good point made yesterday by an editorial in the Otago Daily Times which suggests a Royal Commission, and points to inadequacies in the Government’s plans for an independent panel to propose reform. Without a more rigorous and truly independent mechanism for donations reform, the newspaper warns that “we are left with piecemeal changes to the law designed to convince the populace that something is happening even if that something is not much.”

Nonetheless, the most pressing issue is that the Government needs to properly close the “NZ First Foundation loophole”. There now needs to be pressure applied on the Government so that they don’t carry this out in a way that makes the problem even worse.

The other risk is that in closing this one loophole, the Government gets to declare that the problems are mostly fixed, and the public might too easily believe that the problems identified in the current high court trial have also been dealt with.

There will be a temptation for the parties currently in the dock – Labour and National – to simply patch up the hole that the NZ First verdict has revealed, tweak a few donation thresholds and tick box forms and declare the problem fixed. Until a proper process is set up by a government that takes money in politics seriously, then we have no right to be complacent about corruption in this country.

Further reading on political donations reform and the high court trial

Thomas Manch (Stuff): The fight over political donations and what the Government plans to change
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Ministry of Justice forced to ask for $10m in extra funding for ‘rushed’ electoral law review
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Political donations trial: Eavesdropping on a WeChat scheme
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Jami-Lee Ross’ ex-wife hopes for acquittal in donations trial for children’s sake
Amy Williams (RNZ): Andrew Little and Michael Wood to take stand in political donations trial
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Labour Party wanted to be ‘transparent’ after double up in donors found
Claire Trevett (Herald): Political donations: Justice Minister Kiri Allan – Govt will close NZ First Foundation loophole for election year
RNZ: Cabinet confirms ‘shadow entity’ loophole will be closed
Newstalk: Justice Minister: Closing electoral donations loophole a relatively simple fix

Other items of interest and importance today

COST OF LIVING PAYMENTS
Damien Venuto (Herald): How the cost-of-living payment became a complicated mess
Claire Trevett (Herald): Money doesn’t buy Labour happiness in cost-of-living payment pickle (paywalled)
Peter Dunne: Aspirations are all very well, but it’s getting it right that counts
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Cost of Living payment made to 780,000 fewer people than expected
RNZ: Cost of living payments: Call for government to help low income earners on benefit
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Christopher Luxon says Government has ‘lost the plot’, lashes out over cost of living payment issues
RNZ: National urges investigation over foreign cost-of-living payments
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk): You can only really get angry at cost of living payments if you expected better
Herald: Editorial: Cost of living payment a blunt but effective tool (paywalled)
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): Government in dark over numbers getting cost of living payment overseas
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Cost of living payments – IRD warned govt it’s not sure where people live (paywalled)
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): National: Government underestimating scale of payment errors
Sam Olley (RNZ): Cost of living payment: IRD staying mum on overseas recipient numbers
Brad Lewis (Today FM): Former revenue minister says Governments Cost of Living Payment scheme good idea, poorly executed
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): Cost of living payment will add temporary fuel to inflation: Economists
1News: How far can the cost of living support payment go each week?
Michael Neilson (Herald): Cost of living payment: Questions over ‘targeted’ nature with people overseas receiving money
Jean Edwards (RNZ): Expats, foreigners told they’re getting cost of living payment intended for struggling Kiwis
1News: Govt’s ‘duty’ to support Kiwis amid cost of living crisis – Ardern
Gordon Campbell: On why we should pay kiwis living abroad

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Chris Trotter (Interest): Fifty wasted years
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): By the numbers: The billions of dollars that drive NZ’s economy
Katie Bradford (1News): Low unemployment a chance to reset job market
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): So far, Reserve Bank governor Adrian Orr deserves a second term
Ella Somers (BusinessDesk): Most pokies money comes from the most deprived (paywalled)
Lauren Pattemore (Stuff): Emergency food parcels numbers skyrocket since pandemic
Michael Reddell: Reviewing Covid monetary policy – Part 1
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): How rich are New Zealand’s supermarket owners?
Liam Dann (Herald): Why we won’t be celebrating record low unemployment (paywalled)
Jonathan Mitchell (NBR): Will the Government give motorists an election year sweetener? (paywalled)
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Kiwis being digitally excluded in a changing world
Dan Bidois (Stuff): Two things we should do to make everyone better off

PARLIAMENT, GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
Branko Marcetic (Democracy Project): Who knew James Shaw had so many fans in the media?
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Jacinda has chosen to step away when she is needed most
Dave Armstrong (Stuff): A guide to wrecking left-wing parties in NZ
Richard Harman: National goes to conference on back foot (paywalled)
Steven Cowan: Jacinda is John
Anne-Mette Holmgård Sundahl (The Conversation): Does Jacinda Ardern’s popularity really qualify as a cult of personality, as some critics claim?
David Farrar: Roy Morgan poll July 2022
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Gerry Brownlee retiring from Ilam race next election, hints at Speaker
Critic: Aotearoa’s politicians if they were your flatmates

CO-GOVERNANCE AND THREE WATERS
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Councils propose Three Waters fix without co-governance (paywalled)
Julian Ludbrook (BusinessDesk): Three Waters co-governance: more of the same or different? (paywalled)
Don Brash: One of the world’s most successful democracies at risk
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): A Grand coalition for peace, unity and democracy
Lisa Tumahai (Herald): Ngāi Tahu final step to permanent representation on Environment Canterbury
Tracey Roxburgh (ODT): 3 Waters: Mayor lauds council over approach to submission
Will Trafford (Māori TV): We’ll roll back co-governance – National

HEALTH
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Christopher Luxon backtracks on promise to match health funding with inflation if elected despite repeated assurances
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): I’m not sure Shortland Street is the answer to our nursing shortage
Emma Russell and Rachel Maher (Herald): Healthcare crisis: North Shore Hospital near capacity, woman ‘left in own urine for 14 hours’
Louise Ternouth (RNZ): NZ healthcare workers feel sidelined as govt seeks recruits
Bridie Witton (Stuff): More financial support needed to keep nurses and doctors in New Zealand, industry leaders say
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): 166 skilled migrants want to come here, nine of them nurses… Slow clap Prime Minister
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): Govt plan to boost healthcare workforce is ‘light at the end of the Covid tunnel’
RNZ: Shortland Street, TVNZ nursing campaign funding to be kept secret
Jean Edwards (RNZ): Government warned against relying too heavily on overseas health workers to fill shortages
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): Aged care sector to health minister Andrew Little: we’ve heard it all before (paywalled)
Anna Whyte (1News): Health crisis: New measures to attract overseas staff
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Cheat sheet: The plans hoped to ease the health workforce shortages
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Health Minister Andrew Little stands firm on DHB ‘crisis’ letter timing
David Farrar: ED waiting times at record lengths
Tony Farrell (Herald): Punched-in-the-face and stalked GPs are exhausted and overloaded (paywalled)
Rowan Quinn (RNZ): Hospitals’ winter illnesses spell long waits for heart and cancer surgeries
Samantha Murton (Herald): We can’t magic away the chronic GP shortage (paywalled)
Alex Spence (Herald): ‘Utterly overwhelmed’: Child psychiatrists plead for urgent action to fix mental health staffing crisis (paywalled)
Alex Spence (Herald): Great Minds: Mental health staffing crisis – Andrew Little promises ‘more boots on the ground’
Grady Connell (Today FM): ‘Definitely in a health crisis’ – says anonymous overworked nurse
Aden Miles Morunga (Local Democracy Reporting): Call to improve health inequities for Pasifika, Māori after fluoride order
Georgia O’Connor-Harding (Herald): GP shortage: Rainbow community struggles to find the right health care

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Beijing takes notice of more New Zealanders viewing China as a ‘threat’
Thomas Manch (Stuff): PM Jacinda Ardern urges China to oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
Andrea Vance (Stuff): MPs warned Chinese Government could access TikTok data
Tess McClure (Guardian): New Zealand MPs warned not to use TikTok over fears China could access data
Richard Harman: Ardern backs off White House China statement (paywalled)
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): The excitment and unity seen in Apia is vital as the Pacific deals with multiple crises
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern and politicians show united front on tour to Samoa
Giles Dexter (RNZ): Jacinda Ardern stresses unique nature of New Zealand-Samoa friendship
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): ‘Self-serving’ powers must tackle nuclear threat
Russell Palmer (RNZ): Chinese ambassador touts openness, regional ‘peace and stability’
Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk): Jacinda Ardern on the complicated, important NZ-China relationship (paywalled)
RNZ: Media manager lands on Russia’s banned list after commenting on embassy prank

HOUSING
1News: Hundreds living in cars as winter chill bites
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): The meeting that shows why housing is broken and never gets fixed
Rob Stock (Stuff): Cry of protest from Auckland’s ‘kauri suburbs’
Tamsyn Parker (Herald): Nation of debt: Housing debt jumps 7pc – can we afford the rising cost of it? (paywalled)
RNZ: Decline in house prices gains more traction but crash not expected – CoreLogic
Tina Grumball (Herald): Calls to stop Christchurch housing intensification – ‘Build them where they are needed’
Rachel Moore (Stuff): Motel millions for emergency housing are ‘guaranteed’ Government cash, Hamilton motel leader says
Kate MacNamara (Herald): Affordable housing agency Kāinga Ora bids up Ferncliffe Farms price on inflated valuations (paywalled)
Kelvin Davidson (One Roof): What could harm house prices the most right now – job losses
Carmen Hall (Herald): Bay of Plenty developers say government policies continue to lock land for houses (paywalled)
Fiona Rotherham (NBR): House price falls likely only half-way through, economist says (paywalled)
Diana Clement (One Roof): House price recovery: When will it happen, which city will bounce back the fastest?
Tim Hunter (NBR): How banks fuel house price inflation (paywalled)
RNZ: Auckland council saving estimated $1m housing intensification consultation

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1News: MPs’ views on multiple property-owners getting extra local votes
Simon Wilson (Herald): The mayoral hopefuls and the future of the port (paywalled)
Tom Hunt (Stuff): The good, the bad and the weird: Wellington council report cards in
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Efeso Collins confirmed as frontrunner in Auckland mayoral race (paywalled)
Chris Keall (Herald): Auckland mayoralty: Person behind rogue ‘Efeso Collins’ website revealed (paywalled)
Todd Niall (RNZ): Auckland mayoral candidate rubbishes claim he backs $785m cycle bridge
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): Former National MP Maurice Williamson seeks Auckland Council seat
Samantha Gee (RNZ): Former National MP Nick Smith eyes Nelson mayoralty
ODT: Editorial – Tripping over each other
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk): Māori ward legislation change is clever politics from Nanaia Mahuta
Kiri Gillespie (Herald): Tauranga City Council moves forward in key CBD co-ownership bid with Māori (paywalled)
Lianne Dalziel (Herald): One size does not fit all (paywalled)

JUSTICE, LAW AND ORDER
Damien Grant (Stuff): The fall of a disgraced lawyer in the age of #MeToo
Damien Venuto (Herald): Guns, rage and racism – Has NZ become an angry nation?
Dylan Asafo (Herald): Why we need to abolish prisons and honour te Tiriti o Waitangi (paywalled)
Dita De Boni (NBR): New Law Society head being investigated for ‘behaviour concerns’ (paywalled)
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Law Society launches review over concerns about ‘behaviour’
Michael Neilson (Herald): Reports of retail crime nearly double in 5 years – National’s claim of ‘soft’ approach rubbished by expert (paywalled)
Deena Coster (Stuff): Victims at risk as justice stalled due to ‘exorbitant’ court delays
Jarrod Gilbert (Herald): Evidenced-based policing gives science a seat at the table (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): The ram raids are a symptom of a much deeper malaise

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT
Jamie Mackay (Herald): Gloves off in climate fight over He Waka Eke Noa (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Fuel tax cuts will increase emissions, but Government still plans to hit climate targets
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Climate targets at risk if carbon market isn’t fixed
Will Trafford (Māori TV): Govt axes controversial forestry shake-up
Tina Morrison (Stuff): What’s good for the planet is good for business, survey finds
Jamie Gray (Herald): NZ corporates lag offshore peers reporting climate risk – PwC (paywalled)
Moana Ellis (Local Democracy Reporting): ‘We need to act’: NZ can’t slow down on climate action – Mahuta
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): Greenpeace urges alliance against ‘rush to open deep-sea mining’
David Williams (Newsroom): NZ on the cusp of a rivers revolution

TE REO
Waatea News: Name game distraction from Māori development
Karanama Ruru (Stuff): 35 years ago te reo Māori became an official language, but experts say its survival still isn’t guaranteed
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Celebrating 35 years of te reo Māori as an official language, but the danger of losing it remains

COVID
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Greens, National, ACT, former Reserve Bank chairman call for major Covid-19 inquiry
Akula Sharma (Herald): Protest threat: More Freedom and Rights’ marches in August, Parliament plans unveiled
John Tamihere (Herald): This Covid hangover is not going away until we find something else as a scapegoat’
John Roughan (Herald): It feels like we have a national case of long-Covid (paywalled)
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Govt awaiting advice on isolation and test-to-work
Rachel Smalley (NBR): Prime Minister missing as face of our Covid response (paywalled)
Claire Trevett (Herald): Time for the Covid-19 review? The borders are open and Ashley Bloomfield has left, but the ‘what next’ question lingers (paywalled)
Jamie Morton (Herald): Omicron wave: Why NZ hasn’t seen a worst-case scenario (paywalled)

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION
Duncan Grieve (Spinoff): Willie Jackson has big plans for the media – and social media, too
Siouxsie Wiles (Stuff): Disinformation campaigns a danger to us all
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): A new wave of anti-LGBT hate
Critic: Free speech debate looking for student voices

It’s shocking that the accused in the NZ First Foundation trial were declared “not guilty” in the High Court today. But it’s not actually surprising.

There was always a strong chance that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was not going to get a conviction over the machinations used to keep large donations to the New Zealand First party secret. The revelation of this scandal in 2020, and the trial over the last month, may well have proven that the Electoral Act was breached, but it was far from certain that the accused were guilty of what the authorities were charging them with.

This is because the SFO chose not to lay charges against the defendants, or other party officials and politicians, under the Electoral Act, but under the Crimes Act instead. Rather than arguing that the Electoral Act’s requirements that larger donations be declared to the Electoral Commission (and therefore made public), the SFO essentially argued in court that the accused, who were running the NZ First Foundation, had stolen the money and were guilty of theft.

As the accused were able to argue in their defence, there was no one complaining of theft – certainly not the New Zealand First party, nor the donors. The money had been given to help the party in their electioneering, and that’s how the money genuinely appeared to be spent.

The Serious Fraud Office has some explaining to do

The SFO now need to front up and be accountable for failing to get a conviction for what appears to be a very clear breach of the Electoral Act.

As I noted in an earlier column that questioned the SFO’s strategy, there appeared to be two reasons why charges were laid under the Crimes Act: “It seems likely that the maximum penalties that can be imposed under this act are deemed too low, and so the SFO have used the Crimes Act instead. This raises the question of why the maximum penalties under the Electoral Act are so low. Alternatively, the SFO’s decision to use the Crimes Act might have been because it was too difficult to prove that the Electoral Act has been breached.”

The latter now looks to be the most likely explanation. The SFO may have had trouble using the Electoral Act due to its severe limitations, especially because the accused were not party officials. The Act places responsibility for party donations with the Party Secretary, who was apparently unaware of the donations arrangement. The Foundation had been set up, after all, to keep the donations away from the formal organisation.

In fact, it was the Party President in 2020, Lester Gray, who seems to have been the whistleblower, resigning from the party over the donations arrangements and bringing them to the attention of the media. The SFO likely was hesitant to prosecute them or other officials who had little knowledge of the behaviour at the time it was happening.

The SFO could have gone after other politicians in the New Zealand First party, including leader Winston Peters, who had played a role in fundraising. However, there appeared to be no evidence that he had authorised the way the Electoral Act had been circumvented. The defence made much of the SFO’s failure to call Peters as a witness and “victim” of the alleged crime. The judgement makes it clear that very large donations ended up being used for the purposes both the donors and the party intended. That meant the accused walked free, but it is a damning indictment on our politics.

The Electoral Act needs a significant overhaul

The trial outcome demonstrates that the Electoral Act is full of holes, and that the public cannot have confidence that some large donations to politicians are ever declared. Essentially this is a case study in how you can drive a bus through the Electoral Act.

There needs to be a proper overhaul of electoral laws. Unfortunately, the minor reforms that the Government are proposing won’t address any of this. Even the Independent Panel that was recently set up to look into electoral matters have been pointed to look in a different direction. The Government needs to change the remit of that panel, or else establish something more rigorous like a Royal Commission.

The current Electoral Act appears to operate on a “high trust model”, akin to the Wage Subsidy Scheme under Covid, in which business was trusted to be honest with the $20bn of handouts. Similarly, politicians and their parties are expected to follow the rules, despite knowing there is really no substantial monitoring and enforcement of those rules.

And in fact, revelations of the large donations and the violation of the disclosure requirements only really come about when whistleblowers and the media do some digging. There has to be a better way.

At the moment the Electoral Commission is toothless in this regard. But even when the high-powered SFO spent years on this case it could not get a conviction – despite there being open admissions that the very basic purpose of the Electoral Act’s donation disclosure regime had been seriously violated.

Max Rashbrooke, who is researching the role of money in politics at Victoria University of Wellington, tweeted the following in response to the “not guilty” verdict: “So, in New Zealand now, you can take $750,000 in donations intended for a political party, declare none of it, and get off. Donors can split donations to hide them, and get off. Urgent reform needed. I’ll be writing to the Minister of Justice accordingly.”

The failure to hold politicians, party officials, party fundraisers and donors to account really does bring the whole system of money and politics into disrepute in New Zealand.

If now isn’t the time to demand a proper clean-up of the rules, institutions, and behaviour of politicians and their wealthy backers, then when will be?

Further reading on NZ First Foundation trial

Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Defendants found not guilty in New Zealand First donations trial
Sam Hurley (Herald): NZ First Foundation acquittals: Winston Peters lashes out at ‘spurious allegations’, SFO and media
Sam Hurley (Herald): NZ First Foundation case: Accused pair not guilty of donations fraud after court grants permanent suppression
RNZ: NZ First Foundation case: Men charged over handling of donations found not guilty
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Duo found not guilty in New Zealand First Foundation political donations case
No Right Turn: So its worse then

Other items of interest and importance today

COST OF LIVING AND INFLATION
Josie Pagani (Stuff): We’re being pickpocketed by arrogant corporates
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): Fighting inflation – what would a democratic-socialist government do?
Shane Jones (Herald): Inflation runs amok while MPs chase their tails (paywalled)
Herald: Editorial: Greedflation and price-gouging – why we need to share the inflation pain (paywalled)
Tim Hunter (NBR): How banks fuel house price inflation (paywalled)

PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): It’s looking as if neither Labour nor National wants to win in 2023
John MacDonald (Herald): Don’t blame the Government for advertising spend-up
Graham Adams (The Platform): Ardern dodges questions on Mahuta’s conflicts in Three Waters
Talia Parker (Herald): Why Waiariki MP Rawiri Waititi wants ‘discriminatory’ electoral law changed (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Politically triggering: Cancelling Guy Williams, youth Parliament walk out & banning Taxpayers Union
Sharon Brettkelly (RNZ): Drama behind the scenes at the Film Commission
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Statistics experts fear law change may lead to unregulated data sharing
Rachel Maher (Herald): Taxpayers fund Dr Siouxsie Wiles documentary
ODT: Editorial – Labour’s polytechnic shambles

IMMIGRATION CHANGES
Matthew Hooton (Herald): The method in Labour’s migration makeover (paywalled)
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Labour has once again gone down the ideology route
Rachel Smalley (NBR): Labour goes after the millionaires (paywalled)
Oscar Jackson (Today FM): Stuart Nash defends new investor visa program, calls National’s ‘broke’

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): Do ‘stars’ make good politicians? Ex-All Black Keven Mealamu and the council elections
Moana Ellis (Stuff): Local government conference: ‘We’re ready for change’
The Platform: LGNZ’s Inclusive Campaigning Guidelines
Ben Goodale (Herald): Auckland mayoralty: Leo Molloy’s antics a lesson in why you should be careful what you don’t vote for (paywalled)

COVID
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Lack of Covid rules dividing team of five million
Katy Cox (RNZ): Covid-19 cases at border skyrocket after pre-departure testing scrapped
Dubby Henry (Herald): Ministry of Education recommends schools enforce masks in Term 3

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Stefan Dimitrof (Māori TV): New Zealand not a ‘condescending coloniser’ – Jacinda Ardern
Biman Chand Prasad (Dev Policy Blog): Australia and New Zealand’s silence on democracy and human rights in the Pacific
Joanne Wallis, Anna Powles, and Solstice Middleby (The Conversation): Australia and New Zealand have a golden opportunity to build stronger ties in the Pacific – but will they take it?

ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT
Liz McDonald (Stuff): Survey shows businesses worry about economy, staff shortages
Guy Te Kiniwe Royal (NBR): Once were artists (paywalled)
Matteo Zhang and Louis Collins (RNZ): Youth MPs to focus on glaring wage gap

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Does Labour have the guts to act on climate?
Richard Harman: Paying the price to curb climate change (paywalled)
Herald: Editorial: Climate change outlook – extreme heat with a chance of burning (paywalled)
Simon Bridges (NBR): As economic times change, watch the retreat of ESG (paywalled)

Political Roundup: Public submissions on political donation reform released

Is it ironic that the Government is reforming rules around secret political donations in a very secretive way? There has been overwhelming public demand for more openness about how politicians raise their money, but the Government and officials have been less than transparent and very restrictive over the whole submission process.

The public had a very limited opportunity to give feedback on the Government’s first proposals for political donation reform. The Ministry of Justice called for submissions over the Christmas New Year period, allowing an extremely short timeframe, with submissions closing on January 25. Critics might be forgiven for being cynical about how much public input the Government really wanted.

Further alarm bells have been ringing for those concerned about open government, due to the fact that the Ministry of Justice has been attempting to prevent the public submissions from being released to the public. The Ministry wanted to keep these for Cabinet ministers eyes only.

Battles to obtain public information

As an academic researcher of political finance I have been battling with the Ministry over many months to be provided with copies of the submissions. I first requested the files in early April, but have had various fobbing off communications from the Ministry and attempts to decline my Official Information Act request. One request was ignored because I had failed to cite the “Official Information Act” in my communications (but, no this isn’t a good enough reason).

After attempts to decline my request, and a complaint to the Ombudsman, I finally received the information this month.

Unfortunately some key submissions have been withheld, specifically submissions from three political parties. The Ministry of Justice’s general manager of civil and constitutional policy, Kathy Brightwell, informed me that “The political parties which the ministry received submissions from, provided these on a confidential basis. These parties may not have provided submissions if they knew they were going to be identified, so it would be within the public interest to withhold their submissions, as release of this would likely prejudice the supply of similar information”.

Journalist Andrea Vance has also been declined the public submissions, and yesterday she reported that “The Ministry of Justice struck a deal with political parties to keep secret their submissions on donation law reform.” She also reports the reaction of National’s Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith, who said it was “deeply shocking and ironic” that transparency reforms were being blighted by officials keeping submissions secret.

It is unclear which three political parties have asked the Ministry of Justice to keep their submissions secret. National has already publicly released their submission. And according to Andrea Vance, the Greens and Act are happy to publicly release their submissions. She also says that Labour didn’t provide a formal written submission – instead the party’s general secretary gave an oral representation to the Ministry, and it appears the records of that meeting are being withheld.

Until political parties’ consultations and submissions are released, it will continue to raise questions about the Government’s commitment to improve political transparency.

What the public submissions say

The Ministry of Justice received 276 submissions from the public about the Government’s proposed changes to political donation rules. It’s very clear that most submitters felt reform is urgently needed and the proposed reforms do not go far enough.

Below are some of the key themes of the submissions:

1) Almost unanimous support for lowering the threshold for disclosure. Currently, only donations over $15,000 have to be publicly declared. While there is strong support for the proposal to lower this to $1500, many advocate for an even lower threshold, with a significant number arguing for the limit to be $100 or $200.

2) The majority of submissions support an absolute cap on how much an individual can donate to a political party each year. Many suggest that the $1500 disclosure limit proposed by the Government should actually be the cap. Greenpeace recommended a $10,000 per year cap (The Green Party has introduced legislation to cap donations at $30,000).

3) Many submitters explicitly mentioned concern over corporate donations. A significant number advocated that only individuals should be able to donate – i.e. businesses, trusts, unions shouldn’t be allowed to donate to political parties.

4) There was strong support for increasing frequency of reporting. The submissions agree that the current annual reporting of donations is insufficient, with quarterly or monthly reports recommended, especially during election years and campaign periods.

5) Opposition to the Government’s proposal to remove the ten day disclosure requirement for donations greater than $30,000 was almost unanimous, with most viewing that such a significant sum should be required to be immediately disclosed, even if frequency for smaller donations is increased.

6) There was very strong support for more detailed public disclosures of non-cash donations. A number mentioned the use of fundraising auctions, particularly by the Labour Party, as needing much tighter scrutiny and regulation.

7) Most submissions called for the public disclosure of many more donations, even those under $1500 (which the Government is proposing should be exempt from disclosure). There is strong support for the publishing of the volume and total of donations that political parties receive, regardless of the threshold level.

8) There is very clear support for increased transparency and audits of party finances.

9) Submitters support requiring political candidates to disclose loans, with some calling for a complete ban on loans, a practice at the centre of the current trial related to the NZ First Foundation.

10) In terms of anonymous donations, most submitters thought that there should be either a complete ban or they should be much more restricted – typically a $100-$200 limit per year.  There was some concern about the administrative burden of collecting information for very small donations, but a number made the point that modern technology and finance tools have made tracking payments and donors much easier, and that many countries successfully operate much more detailed and frequent disclosure regimes.

There was some very limited opposition for a complete ban on anonymous donations, notably from the Law Society who argued that some anonymity for donations under $1500 is justified. However, the Chartered Accountants association supported a ban, noting how problematic anonymous funding can be, saying that “while political parties are not subject to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009, there is a reasonable public expectation that political parties have an important role in deterring potential money laundering activities.”

11) A significant number of submissions recognised that greater restrictions and regulation of political donations would lead to a severe reduction in income for political parties, and that this might therefore increase the need for greater state funding of parties.

In general, the submissions are a mixed bag, with varying quality of analysis. That is the nature of public submissions. It can’t be assumed that the submitters are in any way an accurate representation of the public. Nonetheless, it was apparent that there were very few “cut and paste” submissions, which often occurs when some organisations ask their supporters to make submissions repeating a party line. Given that, the near unanimity of views that the proposals needed to go further was striking.

On the other hand, unfortunately, there were also very few submissions from civil society organisations – Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand, the National Māori Authority, Greenpeace, Transparency International New Zealand, the Gama Foundation and the New Zealand Values Alliance. This suggests a need for the Government to find ways to expand their public consultation on this crucial area of democracy.

If you want to see the file of public submissions, this is now available on my Democracy Project website – see: Ministry of Justice OIA release of information on political donations.

Further reading on political donations

Andrea Vance (Stuff): Political party views on donations shake-up kept secret in deal with Ministry of Justice
No Right Turn: A conspiracy against the public
Sam Hurley (Herald): NZ First Foundation case: High Court permanently suppresses identities of accused pair
RNZ: NZ First Foundation case: Donation handlers win permanent name suppression

Other items of interest and importance today

COST OF LIVING AND INFLATION
Daniel Smith (Stuff): Over 40% of workers struggling to meet basic needs, research shows
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Inflation helps firms posting super profits in 2022, but MPs cool on windfall tax
Eric Crampton (Newsroom): Extra half billion dollars in fuel cuts could have gone to critical health shortages
Liam Dann (Herald): Is a housing crash the secret weapon in war on inflation? (paywalled)
Susan St John (Daily Blog): Here is what must happen in child poverty before the end of this year
Steven Cowan: The Winter of discontent
Brent Edwards (NBR): Inflation will have an impact on next year’s election (paywalled)
John McDermott (NBR): The uneven effect when prices rise (paywalled)
David Hargreaves (Interest): It’s crunch time in the inflation battle
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Will higher-than-expected inflation send mortgage rates further north? (paywalled)
Tim Dower (Newstalk): Having our youth living in poverty makes no sense at all
Daniel Smith (Stuff): Three industries hit hardest by inflation
Rodney Dickens (Interest): Calls for more OCR hikes are seriously misplaced
Damien Venuto (Herald): How much longer will the inflation pain last?
Kurt Bayer (Herald): Construction site raids: Builders resort to sleeping on-site to deter brazen thieves (paywalled)
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Why I’m tired of the RBNZ blame game (paywalled)
Clint Smith (Stuff): Who should bear the cost of tackling inflation?
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): Petrol prices drop across NZ as Government questions fuel companies
RNZ: Weekly food spend up by 5 percent on last year, survey finds
Seni Iasona (Newshub): Employee Sentiment Index finds 41 percent of Kiwi workers are struggling to meet basic living costs

THREE WATERS AND CO-GOVERNANCE
Richard Harman: Why the Government needs Three Waters (paywalled)
Chris Trotter (BFD): We are all Māori – with a small ‘M’
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): The Danish solution: How repudiating co-governance could be the saving of Labour
Tim Dower (Newstalk): Our water needs attention, but Three Waters is not the way to do it
Richard Prebble (Herald): Three Waters is an attack on democracy (paywalled)
Irra Lee (1News): Three Waters debates need to be based on fact – Ardern
Claire Trevett (Herald): Three Waters: Government to give councils $44m to help set up Three Waters reforms
Bill Cashmore (Herald): Auckland Council’s position on the Three Waters reform has been consistent since announced (paywalled)
Stephen Ward (Stuff): Hamilton councillors unite to say ‘no’ to Three Waters bill – but political ripples remain
RNZ: Lower South Island mayors stake jobs on three waters approach
Imogen Wells (Newshub): Three Waters dominates at Local Government NZ conference, but Jacinda Ardern dogged by mask controversy
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Wellington fluoride failure a scandal in a league of its own (paywalled)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
David Farrar: LGNZ bans dissenting voices from its annual conference
Janine Rankin and Conor Knell (Stuff): ‘It’s tough time to be a public official’ – Prime Minister at LGNZ conference
Giles Dexter (RNZ): ‘The toughest term’: Mayors grapple with pace and scale of reforms
Roman Travers (Newstalk): How do we encourage people to vote in local body elections?
Te Aniwa Hurihanganui (1News): All newly elected Māori councillors to get mentor
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Māori councillors say they face racism in role: ‘Well your people should be alright, they’ve raised the benefit’
RNZ: Councillors experiencing racism, discrimination on the job – survey
Mike Hosking (Herald): Christchurch the Super City – think big, dream big and build it big (paywalled)
Anna Fifield (Stuff): LGWM requires carrots and sticks
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Wanted for the All Blacks, but not as NZ citizen – why Inoke Afeaki is running for election
David Williams (Newsroom): Mayoral candidate: I should have disclosed conflict
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Wellington’s mayor playing high-stakes election game (paywalled)
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Wellington ‘out of step’ with only one special voting booth
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Candidates clash as Auckland mayoral race heats up

NATIONAL PARTY
Rebecca Stevenson (Interest): Christopher Luxon is right. NZ business is soft
Ben Thomas (Stuff): Plumbing the depths: the decline and fall of an Opposition
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Poll: National support with women increases, overtaking Labour, despite abortion controversy
Andrea Vance (The Spinoff): ‘They clashed like f*ckery’: The final straw for Todd Muller
Andrea Vance (Stuff): The inside story of Todd Muller’s tipping point, as told in the book Blue Blood
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Nicola Willis says changing abortion laws would be ‘dealbreaker’, trusts Christopher Luxon’s assurances National won’t
RNZ: National Party conference to go ahead in person despite rising Covid cases

PARLIAMENT, GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): It seems the Government is as all over the shop as the rest of us
Peter Dunne: Time for MPs to think for themselves
1News: Shaw: Leadership questions not behind moving Greens AGM online
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Right or Left? Two scenarios for political violence in NZ 2023 election
Sam Olley (RNZ): Environmentalists, mana whenua criticise PM’s ‘appalling’ gift to US president
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Herald): NZ’s future leaders ready to be heard right now
Olivia Shivas (Stuff): $1m Election Access Fund gets mixed response from disabled people
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Youth MPs call on Parliament to lower the voting age
Herald: Online survey to see if you want to be on the Māori Electoral Roll or the General Roll
Deena Coster (Stuff): Democracy NZ not just a ‘one-issue party’ – leader

IMMIGRATION CHANGES
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Greens say new investor visa slap in face for nurses, lets super wealthy buy residency while they jump through hoops
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Foreign investors will need to work harder to get NZ residency
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Partner work visas on the chopping block
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Concern Government’s investor visa change could lead New Zealand to losing billions

HEALTH
Ian Powell: What happens when a health minister loses workforce trust and confidence
Damien Venuto (Herald): What could alleviate massive strain on the health sector?
Janine Rankin (Stuff): Covid-19 exposes deep trouble in primary healthcare
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): NZNO not “impressed” Andrew Little dismissed their credibility

HOUSING
Andrea Vance (Stuff): ‘Get rich quick scheme’ – $16m paid to an Auckland motel for emergency accommodation
RNZ: New home building costs rising at record 7.7% annual rate
1News: KiwiBuild a ‘totally failed policy’ – Nicola Willis
Katie Bradford (1News): Govt relaxes restrictions around troubled KiwiBuild policy
Herald: Kiwibuild: Income and price caps adjusted for Government housing scheme
Louise Ternouth (RNZ): Renters stuck in cold, damp homes as compliance with law lacking – advocates

COVID
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern snapped maskless may ‘indicate that’s okay behaviour’, photo-ops should model good mask-use, experts say
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Michael Baker ‘quite shocked’ at photo of Jacinda Ardern maskless in crowd
Claire Trevett (Herald): The PM and the maskless photo – fair or foul, and have we got too precious? (paywalled)
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): National Deputy leader Nicola Willis defends PM Jacinda Ardern after maskless photo causes furore
1News: ‘Give her a break’: Willis defends PM’s maskless group photo
Zizi Sparks (Herald): Covid-19 mask wearing shouldn’t fall by the wayside (paywalled)
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Can we ease up on the mask shaming, please?
Herald: Editorial: Sick days hit the workforce as second wave rises (paywalled)
Hannah Martin (Stuff): What we know about the ‘Centaurus’ BA.2.75 variant in New Zealand

EDUCATION
John Gerritsen (RNZ): Think-tank reveals high failure rate in small trial-run of new literacy, numeracy tests
Gabrielle McCulloch (Stuff): Number of students missing from school has almost doubled in past nine months
Sarah Robson (RNZ): The boom and bust of our polytechs

A View from Afar – In this week’s podcast, Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss: three areas that have been relied on to protect New Zealanders from terror-styled attacks; legal measures designed to protect communities from danger and even protect individuals from themselves and why they failed.

The background to this episode is the tragic, terrifying, attacks that were committed against unarmed innocent people at West Auckland’s LynnMall Countdown supermarket, by Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen.

The attacks occurred last Friday, September 3, 2021. It ended with the hospitalisation of seven people, and, the death of Mr Samsudeen who was fatally shot by special tactics Police officers during his attempt to kill and injure as many people as he could.

Immediately after, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the nation that the dead man was a terrorist and that she herself, the Police, and the courts were all aware of how dangerous he was and had been seeking to protect New Zealand from this man.

Within days of the attacks, we learned, that Mr Samsudeen was a troubled man with psychologists describing him as angry, capable of carrying out his threats, and displaying varying degrees of mental illness and disorder.

Mr Samsudeen was a refugee who sought asylum here in New Zealand after experiencing, through his formative years, civil war and ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka, who, at around 20 years of age, arrived in New Zealand on a student visa and then sought asylum.

He was eventually granted refugee status, and since then spent years in prison on various charges and convictions – largely involving the possession of terrorist propaganda seeded on the internet by ISIS, and, threats showing intent to commit terrorist acts against New Zealanders.

In this week’s episode, Paul Buchanan and Manning examine questions as to whether this tragedy could have been prevented and will consider New Zealand’s:

• Security and terror laws
• Deportation laws involving those with refugee status
• Mental Health Act and whether this was available to the authorities.

Buchanan and Manning also analyse whether it is necessary for the New Zealand Government to move to tighten New Zealand’s terrorism security laws. And, if it does, how the intended new laws compare to other Five Eyes member countries.

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – LIVE @ MIDDAY Thursday: In this week’s podcast, Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will discuss: three areas that have been relied on to protect New Zealanders from terror-styled attacks; legal measures designed to protect communities from danger and even protect individuals from themselves and why they failed.

The background to this episode is the tragic, terrifying, attacks that were committed against unarmed innocent people at West Auckland’s LynnMall Countdown supermarket, by Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen.

The attacks occurred last Friday, September 3, 2021. It ended with the hospitalisation of seven people, and, the death of Mr Samsudeen who was fatally shot by special tactics Police officers during his attempt to kill and injure as many people as he could.

Immediately after, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the nation that the dead man was a terrorist and that she herself, the Police, and the courts were all aware of how dangerous he was and had been seeking to protect New Zealand from this man.

Within days of the attacks, we learned, that Mr Samsudeen was a troubled man with psychologists describing him as angry, capable of carrying out his threats, and displaying varying degrees of mental illness and disorder.

Mr Samsudeen was a refugee who sought asylum here in New Zealand after experiencing, through his formative years, civil war and ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka, who, at around 20 years of age, arrived in New Zealand on a student visa and then sought asylum.

He was eventually granted refugee status, and since then spent years in prison on various charges and convictions – largely involving the possession of terrorist propaganda seeded on the internet by ISIS, and, threats showing intent to commit terrorist acts against New Zealanders.

In this week’s episode, Paul Buchanan and I will examine questions as to whether this tragedy could have been prevented and will consider New Zealand’s:

• Security and terror laws
• Deportation laws involving those with refugee status
• Mental Health Act and whether this was available to the authorities.

We will also analyse whether it is necessary for the New Zealand Government to move to tighten New Zealand’s terrorism security laws. And, if it does, how the intended new laws compare to other Five Eyes member countries.

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The tragic terrorist attack at an Auckland shopping mall on Friday has led to a lot of debate about how it could have been prevented. It turns out authorities were well aware of Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen’s severe mental health problems and his capacity for violent extremism if not dealt with appropriately.

Much of the initial debate has been about why Samsudeen wasn’t deported or incarcerated. In the last day, however, the conversation has shifted to questions about how Corrections and Police handled Samsudeen over the last few years. There are allegations that these government agencies failed to provide the necessary and potentially vital services of rehabilitation and deradicalisation, which may have significantly reduced the risks of Samsudeen developing into a violent extremist.

The must-read piece on this is by Australian criminologist Clarke Jones, who was involved in the judicial proceedings around Samsudeen, and argues that at an early stage he was capable of being diverted from going down the ISIS-route. Jones, who is expert in de-radicalising Islamic extremists, believes authorities failed to take seriously the need for Samsudeen’s rehabilitation – see: I assessed the Auckland terrorist – our approach to extremism has to change.

Here’s Jones’ main point: “During Samsudeen’s trial in 2018, his legal team and I offered to run a bespoke, community-led intervention program to support Samsudeen in his transition out of prison, with one of its aims to alter his extreme views. The program, which has been successfully applied in the past with Muslim youth transiting out of prison, was accepted by the crown as the best and most appropriate way forward. Nonetheless, the police opted for a different approach to the crown, instead choosing surveillance and monitoring over rehabilitation.”

The Muslim community is also aghast that authorities passed up their offer to rehabilitate Samsudeen. The New Zealand Muslim Association explained today that they took a proposal to the Corrections agency to develop a formal programme, but the government department turned it down, essentially in favour of an easier option – see Anneke Smith’s Muslim leader ‘baffled’ Corrections passed up rehabilitation offer for LynnMall terrorist.

The same article reports that the Muslim Association were astonished that Corrections then chose this year to release Samsudeen into a small mosque without the necessary resources to deal adequately with him. According to the Association president Ikhlaq Kashkari, Corrections made an odd decision to send Samsudeen to the Glen Eden Masjid e Bilal mosque: “We’re a large organisation. We have skills, capabilities, people and resources to support something like this but we wanted to make sure it’s done properly. I have no idea how on earth they managed to talk this small Islamic centre, who were basically renting a property, to take him on board… I know the person that runs it used to work in the prison on behalf of Muslim community chaplains, a service provided to prisons, but that’s about it. Their skills, resources and capabilities beyond that is very, very limited.”

The Prime Minister is backing Corrections’ decisions. Jacinda Ardern has responded: “I’m confident agencies did everything within their power to keep the community safe” – see Edward O’Driscoll’s New Lynn attack: Community leaders say Corrections shouldn’t have housed supermarket terrorist in mosque. This article also reports that Police supported Corrections’ decision to send Samsudeen to the Glen Eden mosque.

The PM is reported in another article stating that all avenues around housing and rehabilitation were explored, but she admits that official reviews are needed to fully answer questions about this – see Thomas Manch’s PM says reviews will provide answers on terrorist’s management, as questions mount.

This article also possibly sheds further light on why Corrections rejected the Muslim Association’s offer of a rehabilitation programme – because such a programme would have required providing resources, as well as agreeing to a “terms of reference” setting out responsibilities not just for the association but for the government agency. Corrections has also explained that you can’t force rehabilitation on an individual who is unwilling.

Thomas Manch has also written a must-read background on Samsudeen’s life in Sri Lanka and then New Zealand, pointing out the severe mental health problems he developed over the years – see: The terrorist was a ‘highly damaged’ refugee, and efforts to help him failed. According to Manch, these details “raise questions about how the Government handled a psychologically damaged man who was readily captured by the extremist Isis propaganda.”

Manch cites criminologist Clarke Jones saying that he observed back in 2018 that Samsudeen was still redeemable: “At that stage, it was still manageable”, “There was definitely quite a lot of room for rehabilitation”, and “if they’d addressed his mental health needs then we might not have been in this situation now.” But Jones points out that the programme never got the “go-ahead” as “the police appeared to have little appetite for a community-led programme.”

Jones is also cited by Katie Todd in her article, Missed opportunities to deradicalise LynnMall attacker, says criminologist. Commenting on the fact that authorities chose to use surveillance and monitoring rather than rehabilitation, Jones says: “I would say that we haven’t got the balance right. In this case, there was too much focus on the counter terrorism or counter violent extremism narrative, rather than actually getting to the core of what was wrong with Mr Samsudeen.”

The terrorist’s family are also cited in the article, with his brother arguing that Samsudeen would sometimes listen to them when they challenged the ideological path he was going down. His brother also says: “The prisons and the situation was hard on him and he did not have any support. He told us he was assaulted there.”

Columnist Donna Miles has also asked some important questions about rehabilitation, and especially how and why Samsudeen became radicalised: “Why was this rehabilitation programme not effective? It has been reported that he refused the psychological assessment which was part of the programme. Did the police’s independent decision to put the attacker under constant surveillance have any impact on his rehabilitation?” – see: We must be careful not to fall into the terrorism trap.

Similarly, Jehan Casinader argues: “Friday’s incident should spur us to deeply examine the causes of radicalisation, and invest more money in efforts to deradicalise those who have already been identified by authorities” – see: ‘He’s not one of us’: Jehan Casinader responds to terror attack.

Casinader relays how he investigated the case of another refugee involved in a criminal act in New Zealand, finding: “Despite carrying significant trauma, she did not receive appropriate mental health support or rehabilitation, and became isolated and increasingly desperate in the lead-up to her offending.” He argues prevention is more effective than managing an offender: “There’s no point spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on detention and surveillance if state agencies are unable to provide culturally-responsive treatment for an individual at high risk of offending.”

As part of Samsudeen’s community supervision sentence he was required to undergo a psychological assessment this year. He apparently refused, but Corrections has been reluctant to answer questions on this – most importantly on why he was then allowed to continue with his community sentence. But today Charlotte Cook reports that the department “looked at charging him for the lack of engagement with both a private and Corrections psychologist, but was told it was not sufficient enough to be considered a breach of his conditions” – see: LynnMall attack: Terrorist threw faeces, assaulted staff – Corrections.

In this article, Correction’s national commissioner Rachel Leota is said to be “confident that Community Corrections staff were using every lawful avenue available to monitor, assess, mitigate, and manage his risk.”

Finally, there have been questions raised about whether Samsudeen’s mental health issues should be the subject of any public debate at all. The Mental Health Foundation suggests that his psychological condition should not be seen as part of the explanation for what has occurred. For more on this, see Lincoln Tan’s Terrorist couldn’t be detained under Mental Health Act after he refused psychological assessment: Legal expert.

Should anyone have trust in politicians, given the manner in which they solicit money from the wealthy? Probably not, since virtually every party in Parliament in recent times has been found to be involved in flaunting the law or accepting dodgy donations from the rich. News reports of questionable donations and fundraising have been building up over recent years, and this year it only seems to be escalating.

This week it’s the Labour Government in the spotlight – with revelations that they are continuing to use the fundraising mechanism of the last National Government, whereby the Prime Minister and other senior ministers are advertised to wealthy businesspeople as available for an audience in exchange for cash. This “cash for access” scheme was named the “Cabinet Club” by National, but the Labour Government gives it the name “Labour Party Business Conference” – see Derek Cheng’s Labour’s $1795 ‘business’ conference – How much should it cost to chat to Jacinda Ardern and senior ministers?.

This all-day fundraising meeting for businesspeople will take place on 30 July in Auckland. The invitation sent out by Labour Party president Claire Szabo promises “interactive sessions” with the top ministers and PM to discuss policies, finishing with “networking drinks” – all for the price of $2064 (including GST).

Labour’s coalition partner the Greens have criticised the fundraising, with Justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman alleging that these donations are about privileged access to decisionmakers, pointing out that only the wealthy can gain the ear of the Government ministers. She wants the rules on this kind of fundraising changed: “We keep having these things be revealed to the public, and find that the public is shocked and horrified that these things can happen within the rules”. Furthermore, she complains, “It’s all within the rules, so it’s really time to change the rules, even though politicians have a vested interest in the rules remaining.”

Labour Party general secretary Rob Salmond is reported justifying the cash for access scheme on the basis that other parties do it: “For many years political parties have hosted events which their MPs attend, and sold tickets to those events. There’s nothing new in that.” However, previously Salmond has been highly critical of National doing the same thing. For example, in 2014 when his opponents denied that Cabinet Clubs were a conflict of interest or a problem, lampooned their denials: “Cabinet Clubs are not clubs, just as high-class prostitutes are not prostitutes, and conflicts of interest are not interests.”

This latest dodgy donations scandal was first reported yesterday by Richard Harman, who explains “Labour has obviously carefully designed this so that it falls within Electoral law and also the requirements of the Cabinet Manual” – see: $1795 to meet a Labour Cabinet Minister (paywalled). He points out that in terms of selling access to the decisionmakers, “The invitation did not refer to their Ministerial titles but instead described them as ‘spokesperson’ for their relevant portfolios.”

A history of selling access to Cabinet ministers

The Labour Party is quite right to say that their business club fundraising is nothing new. The National Government was infamous for setting up its Cabinet Club under John Key’s prime ministership, in which people could pay $1000-plus to chat to senior ministers. I covered this in 2014, in a column, Is there ‘cash for access’ in NZ politics?.

In this I drew attention to Labour’s use of the term “corruption” in relation to National’s fundraising. MP Louisa Wall wrote a piece condemning the practice, saying “This is clearly payment for access and if the price is right a deal can be done” – see: When does corruption start damaging National?.

Once Labour got into power, however, it was quick to emulate National’s techniques. In 2017 Labour launched its exclusive “President’s Club”, which gave wealthy businesspeople a chance to purchase dinner opportunities with Cabinet ministers.

Then in 2018 the Minister of Finance started inviting businesspeople, corporate lobbyists and other wealthy individuals to meet with him in exclusive venues for dinner, where he would speak, signal future policy announcements, and go from table to table for more intimate discussions with donors – see my roundup at the time: Questions over Grant Robertson’s ‘cash for access’ fundraising.

Other recent revelations about donations

According to Richard Harman, writing about Labour’s latest corporate fundraising, the political parties are trying to find new sources of cash, especially after the Serious Fraud Office clamped down on some of their donors: “Both Labour and National are under pressure now to find new sources of funding with their previously lucrative China funding pipelines effectively closed down by the Serious Fraud Office, which has charges before the courts relating to both parties’ acceptance of funding from Chinese sources.”

Newsroom writer Pete McKenzie has uncovered some other interesting donations involving various parties. Perhaps the most interesting is the donation accepted by the Green Party from someone prosecuted for abuse of animals. McKenzie explains that one of the party’s biggest donors was convicted in 2020 for her severe neglect of animals, but despite her donation being processed by the Greens’ ethics committee the money was accepted, and the party still refuse to return the money – see: Greens won’t be returning $54k donations from animal abuser.

The Greens claim they were unaware of the abuse, but McKenzie says a quick search online uncovered “her history of neglect”. And the party argue that the law means the money can’t be donated to another organisation such as the SPCA.

Blogger No Right Turn is aghast at the party’s stance on this, asking: How much is the Greens’ reputation worth?. He argues the case of animal neglect “was fairly high-profile”, and he says “I’m surprised that no-one in the party noticed.”

The blogger argues the party has the ability to return the donation but is choosing not to, which means the Greens are complicit: “if they refuse to do so, knowing the crimes the donor committed, their supporters are perfectly entitled to conclude that they support those crimes, or are at least willing to turn a blind eye to them for money. And I doubt many of them would find that acceptable.”

McKenzie has uncovered another dodgy donation accepted by a Labour MP, who has now returned the money – see: Minister returns donation from Christchurch attack conspiracy theorist. Here are the basic details: “Phil Twyford has returned a $2,000 donation after Newsroom found that it came from a man who claimed the Christchurch terror attacks were part of a Jewish conspiracy.”

Another Cabinet Minister, Stuart Nash, has received large donations from businesspeople in industries that he oversees. According to McKenzie, “Nash raked in nearly $50,000 in big money donations for last year’s election – including at least $25,500 from people who could benefit from decisions he makes as the new minister in charge of forestry and regional development” – see: Donations create conflict issue for Stuart Nash’s forestry portfolio.

This article quotes researcher Max Rashbrooke arguing that it is “concerning if a minister is accepting or has accepted donations from an industry which he is supposed to be regulating”, and he is “calling on Nash to return the money”. In response, a spokesperson for Nash says the Cabinet Office has cleared Nash’s situation, but McKenzie says the “spokesperson did not respond to questions regarding which interests and potential conflicts the minister disclosed”, and nor did they “respond to questions regarding whether he would recuse himself from any ministerial decisions specifically involving individuals and companies who have donated to his campaigns.”

McKenzie has written another piece for Newsroom in which he focuses on the National Party’s recent fundraising technique whereby the head office appears to collect money on behalf of local election candidates, and then donates the money to an individual’s campaign – see: Politics rife with ‘dark money’. The speculation is that this is a technique to get around the laws requiring donors to be publicly disclosed as donating to that candidate.

National has responded and is quoted in the article, saying: “Whilst it is easy to hypothesise, allege, and pontificate on the nefarious intent of some in politics, and use that falsehood as an angle to smear other political parties, in the case of the National Party it is frankly just inaccurate and wrong.”

The article also examines the Labour Party’s use of artwork auctions, in which prominent artists donate artwork which is sold to Labour supporters, effectively as an undeclared donation.

McKenzie has also summarised his own conclusions about his series of Newsroom articles, writing for the Guardian, concluding that New Zealand’s campaign finance laws are broken. That can have enormous consequences. He argues, “An increased appetite for political donations strengthens the political influence of the wealthiest New Zealanders”.

The SFO investigations

Last month the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced it was prosecuting six individuals in relation to donations to the Labour Party. This comes on top of an upcoming trial relating to National Party donations. New Zealand First is also being investigated by the SFO, and Te Paati Māori has been referred for investigation by the Police.

When the Labour prosecution case was announced, Jacinda Ardern responded to say: “This isn’t a good environment for anyone, for no political party, but nor for New Zealanders, they want to have confidence in the system so let’s look at the law.”

That’s “a cop-out” according to RNZ political editor Jane Patterson, who says the “latest charges to be laid by the Serious Fraud Office are a reflection on the players, not the system” – see: SFO charges an indictment on political parties – not the system. She complains that “It’s a default position of political parties to call for a review of the rules when trouble arises.”

Patterson rails against politicians who suggest the problem is with the rules and perhaps with the ability of the politicians and donors to easily abide by these. She suggests the pattern of rule violation makes it clear that those who do so have “a good understanding and knowledge of the rules, rather than offences being committed in ignorance.”

Patterson concludes: “All of this erodes public trust. To have cases linked to National, Labour and New Zealand First, either before the courts or heading for them, is an indictment on the politicians and those parties, not the system.”

Similarly, the Herald’s Audrey Young has described Ardern’s response to the Labour-related SFO charges as being “knee-jerk”, and points out that “Ardern resisted calling for a look at the law when charges were laid in relation to National and New Zealand First donations. That suggestion arose only after charges were laid in relation to Labour” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s knee-jerk reaction to SFO charges (paywalled).

Young says Ardern’s attempt to blame “the system” is misplaced when in fact the “law is clear” and is finally working – in bringing charges against those who are allegedly violating the rules. She celebrates that after years of complaints about dodgy donation going nowhere, finally “the system” is prosecuting, and therefore New Zealanders can “have confidence that the system might actually be working”. She therefore advises against the politicians immediately undertaking yet another overhaul of donations law: “The law has been refined many times. Now it is time for it to be tested before the courts.”

Finally, for details on how well the parties did out of donations in 2020, see the report on the official figures disclosed last month – see Michael Neilson, Claire Trevett and Jason Walls’ National received nearly $3m in political donations in 2020 – nearly double Labour.